DOCSLIB.ORG

Internal Co-Selection and the Coherence of Kinship Typologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Internal Co-Selection and the Coherence of Kinship Typologies Biological Theory https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-021-00379-6 THEMATIC ISSUE ARTICLE: EVOLUTION OF KINSHIP SYSTEMS Kin Against Kin: Internal Co‑selection and the Coherence of Kinship Typologies Sam Passmore1 · Wolfgang Barth2 · Kyla Quinn2 · Simon J. Greenhill2,3 · Nicholas Evans2 · Fiona M. Jordan1 Received: 4 December 2020 / Accepted: 12 April 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Across the world people in diferent societies structure their family relationships in many diferent ways. These relationships become encoded in their languages as kinship terminology, a word set that maps variably onto a vast genealogical grid of kinship categories, each of which could in principle vary independently. But the observed diversity of kinship terminology is considerably smaller than the enormous theoretical design space. For the past century anthropologists have captured this variation in typological schemes with only a small number of model system types. Whether those types exhibit the internal co-selection of parts implicit in their use is an outstanding question, as is the sufciency of typologies in capturing variation as a whole. We interrogate the coherence of classic kinship typologies using modern statistical approaches and systematic data from a new database, Kinbank. We frst survey the canonical types and their assumed patterns of internal and external co-selection, then present two data-driven approaches to assess internal coherence. Our frst analysis reveals that across parents’ and ego’s (one’s own) generation, typology has limited predictive value: knowing the system in one generation does not reliably predict the other. Though we detect limited co-selection between generations, “disharmonic” systems are equally common. Second, we represent structural diversity with a novel multidimensional approach we term kinship space. This approach reveals, for ego’s generation, some broad patterning consistent with the canonical typology, but diversity (and mixed systems) is considerably higher than classical typologies suggest. Our results strongly challenge the descriptive adequacy of the set of canonical kinship types. Keywords Anthropology · Cross-cultural kinship · Linguistics · Semantic systems · Typology Introduction in English).1 The kinship system of any language can thus be seen as a particular matrix of equivalences or “syncretisms” In the languages of all societies, the vast number of logically demonstrating which kin types use identical or similar terms, distinguishable kin types (e.g., categories such as father’s and which are diferentiated. The taken-for-granted nature of younger sister, father’s older sister, mother’s younger sister, how we use language means that the confation of such cat- mother’s older sister) are mapped onto a smaller and more egories seem obvious to speakers of the language that uses tractable set of kin terms (e.g., aunt for all the above terms them (here English, for aunt), but counterintuitive to those whose own languages ofer diferent conceptual cuts (e.g., the Australian language Kayardild, which would reserve the * Fiona M. Jordan term marrkathu for father’s sisters but group mother’s sisters [email protected] with one’s mother, as ngamathu (Evans 2011)). Linguists 1 Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University and anthropologists must thus move between the language- of Bristol, Bristol, UK internal conceptual groupings that seem obvious to their 2 ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language speakers (aunt; marrkathu), generally called emic in the (CoEDL), Australian National University, Canberra, ACT , literature, and the fner language-independent categories Australia 3 Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 1 Useful papers surveying this topic are Dole (1969) and Hage Germany (2001). Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 S. Passmore et al. (e.g., “father’s older sister”)2 which form an etic grid against anthropological puzzle for decades. Situated at a nexus of which language-specifc categories can be calibrated. Kin language, cognition, and social reproduction, kinship sys- types are etic; kin terms are emic, and the cross-linguistic tems ofer a multifaceted domain through which to explore study of kinship terminology focuses on the diferent ways cognitive and cultural evolution. languages map their kin terms onto the universally-defnable Since the pioneering work of Morgan (1871) and Fison etic grid to produce kinship systems. and Howitt (Gardner and McConvell 2015) in the 19th cen- Notably, the enormous design space of possible kinship tury, scholars have worked to establish an encompassing systems is thinly populated amongst vast empty spaces. The typology of kinship systems for the languages of the world. pioneering study of sibling terms by Nerlove and Romney By compiling large sets of terms, across many languages, (1967) found that among 4,140 possible sibling term sys- for hundreds of kin types (over 260 in Morgan’s case), these tems,3 only 15 systems occurred more than twice in their researchers discerned recurrent patterns in which diferent sample of 245 languages, and these 15 occupied 95.5% of parts of the system appear to correlate. This led to the classic the sample; moreover, there were only 23 systems altogether typologies of the early to mid-20th century (see the “Classic within their sample. Once we move from sibling terms to Typologies of Kinship” section), which assigned languages parents, uncles and aunts, cousins, grandkin, and in-laws, to a canonical “system” (e.g., Iroquois/Dravidian,5 Eskimo,6 the number of possible systems rapidly climbs into unim- Hawaiian) on the basis of diagnostic syncretisms and distinc- aginably large numbers.4 The same pattern holds: there are tions in one crucial subset of the terms (typically siblings a strikingly limited number of attested systems with respect and/or parents and nuncles7). Important questions of exter- to those that are logically possible. Some of these unat- nal co-selection between particular systems and other social tested possibilities, it has been argued, are due to trade-ofs phenomena, could then be pursued empirically: for example, between simplicity and informativeness (Kemp and Regier whether the presence of cross-cousin marriage is correlated 2012; Kemp et al. 2018). These can take the form of mark- with Dravidian or Iroquois kinship systems (Godelier et al. edness constraints, favoring the greater elaboration of terms 1998). Recurrent and reliably identifable systems of social for nearer rather than more distant kin, or a preference for and cultural organization make human diversity tractable conjunctive characterizations (“elder AND male referent, to cross-cultural analysis, and typologies of (e.g.) subsist- i.e., elder brother”) over disjunctive ones (“elder OR male ence, political organization, and color naming have allowed referent,” i.e., brother (younger or older) or older sister) researchers to ask broad questions about cultural change and (Greenberg 1966). However, studies like these only identify statistical regularities. Logically however, the validity of the some of the constraints on attested systems, and we focus answers depends on the coherence and operationalizability here on a further potential constraint—the consistency of of the systems themselves, which we can only evaluate once where distinctions or mergers are made—as a selector on we have good data on how far kin types really do cohere why so few systems populate the enormous design space. across the whole system of terminology, as well as across We will term this internal co-selection since it implies that a broad and phylogenetically well-balanced sample of lan- a design feature of one part of the system (say, the treatment guages. While we are certainly not the frst to suggest that of uncle terms) has selective consequences for another part subsystems will vary independently (e.g., D’Andrade 1971; of the kin system (say, the treatment of cousin terms): there Murdock 1970), we here advocate a root-and-branch review is co-selection, by hypothesis, between diferent syncretisms of these types, capitalizing on new data aggregation and within the overall system. Understanding the constraints on computational methods, with the goal of a more accurate these semantic systems of social life, how they emerge and and fexible description of how we carve up the social world. change, and why we see some but not others, has been an The aim of this article is the frst step in this endeavor: to evaluate whether systems of kinship terminology do in fact exhibit the terminological coherence that the classic typolo- 2 For brevity, we use the following abbreviations for the rest of gies presume. We draw on a large global sample of 1,107 the article: B = brother, D = daughter, e = elder, f = female refer- ent, F = father, G = sibling, m = male referent, M = mother, S = son, y = younger, X = cross, Z = sister, // = parallel. These are chained together as appropriate, e.g., MB for “mother’s brother.” 5 Morgan, whose interest in kinship began with various Iroquoian 3 Nerlove and Romney considered eight possible kin types, defned languages, used the term Iroquois for this type, but subsequent inves- by the three-way binary matrix “sex of referent” versus “sex of ego” tigators have often used the term Dravidian for what is essentially the versus “referent older or younger than ego.” Some further distinctions same system. See the second section. are possible but are rare. The fgure of 4140 is the Bell number for 8 6 We apologize to those Inuit peoples who fnd this term ofensive. (the number of ways a set of 8 cells can be partitioned into groups). We regretfully retain this term here simply because it is the one that 4 The authors’ database gives terms for 98 kin types (still just a sub- articulates with the literature, and we advocate for an alternative. set of all possible kin terms–it excludes, e.g., great-uncles and great- 7 For brevity, we adopt the widespread term “nuncle” for “uncle or aunts) and the Bell number for these 98 terms is 5.55 × ­10112.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Organization III
    08Ch08_Miller.QXD 12/15/08 9:34 PM Page 198 PART Social Organization III 8 Kinship and Domestic Life Social Groups and Social 9 Stratification 10 Politics, Conflict, and Social Order 08Ch08_Miller.QXD 12/15/08 9:34 PM Page 199 FREDY PECCERELLI, A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, risks his personal security working for victims of political violence in his homeland. Peccerelli is founder and executive director of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Founda- tion (Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala or FAFG), a group that focuses on the recovery and identifica- tion of some of the 200 000 people, mostly indigenous Maya of the mountainous regions, that Guatemalan military forces killed or “disappeared” during the brutal civil war that occurred between the mid-1960s and the mid-1990s. Peccerelli was born in Guatemala. His family immigrated to the United States when his father, a lawyer, was threatened by death squads. He grew up in New York and attended Brooklyn College in the 1990s. But he felt a need to reconnect with his heritage and began to study anthropology as a vehicle that would allow him to serve his country. The FAFG scientists excavate clandestine mass graves, exhume the bodies, and identify them through several means, such as matching dental and/or medical records. Anthropologists In studying skeletons, they try to determine the person’s age, gender, stature, ancestry, and lifestyle. DNA studies at are few because of the expense. The scientists also collect Work information from relatives of the victims and from eye- witnesses of the massacres. Since 1992, the FAFG team has discovered and exhumed approximately 200 mass grave sites in villages, fields, and churches.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociolinguistics (ENG510)
    Sociolinguistics-ENG510 VU Sociolinguistics (ENG510) ___________________________________________________________________________________ ©Copyright Virtual University of Pakistan 1 Sociolinguistics-ENG510 VU Table of Contents Lesson No. Lesson Title Topics Pg. No. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLINGUISTICS What is Sociolinguistics? 001 8-9 Some Definitions of Sociolinguistics 002 9 Lesson No. 1 Sociolinguistics and Linguistics 003 9-10 Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language 004 10 Sociolinguistics and Other Disciplines 005 10-11 SOCIOLINGUISTIC PHENOMENA Sociolinguistic Phenomena and an Imaginary World 006 12-13 Sociolinguistic Phenomena and a Real but Exotic World 007 13-14 Lesson No. 2 Sociolinguistic Phenomena and a Real and Familiar World 008 15 Sociolinguistic Phenomena and We 009 15-16 Sociolinguistic Phenomena and the Changing World 010 16 SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND VARIETIES OF LANGUAGE The Question of Varieties of Language in Sociolinguistics 011 17-18 Lesson No. 3 What Are Linguistics Items? 012 18 The Terms- Variety and Lect 013 18 Types and Significance of Varieties of Language 014 19 Attitude towards Language Varieties 015 19 SPEECH COMMUNITIES What Are Speech Communities? 016 20 Some Definitions of Speech Communities 017 21 Lesson No. 4 Intersecting Communities 018 21-22 Rejecting the Idea of Speech Communities 019 23 Networks and Repertoires 020 23-24 LANGUAGE CONTACT AND VARIATION- I Sociolinguistic Constraints on language Contact 021 25 Wave Model of Language Contact and Change 022 26 Lesson No. 5 Spatial Diffusion by Gravity 023 27 Access to the Codes 024 27-28 Rigidity of the Social Matrix 025 29-30 LANGUAGE CONTACT AND VARIATION- II Variables and Variants 026 31 Types of Variables and Variants 027 31-32 Lesson No.
    [Show full text]
  • Degree Thesis English (61-90) Credits
    Degree Thesis English (61-90) credits Keeping Mum: An Exploration of Contemporary Kinship Terminology in British, American and Swedish Cultures Linguistics, 15 credits Halmstad 2021-06-21 Gerd Bexell HALMSTAD UNIVERSITY Abstract Keeping Mum: An Exploration of Contemporary Kinship Terminology in British, American and Swedish Cultures The aim of this paper is to briefly clarify the categorization and usage of kinship terms in American and British English in comparison with the Swedish kinship terms, both considering the vocative use and the referential function. There will also be a comparison with previous studies. The Swedish language contains considerably more detailed definitions for kinship. By choosing mostly informants with experience of both language cultures, this paper will investigate and explore whether English speakers themselves experience this as a lack of kinship vocabulary, and in what circumstances supplementary explanation is needed to clarify the identities of referents and addressees. It will further be established how and when the use of such terms can give rise to misunderstandings or confusion. Kinship terms will also be considered in connection with the present social and cultural environment. Seemingly, the use of kin terms has changed over recent decades and there appears to be etymological, lexicological and semantic causes for such misunderstandings. This essay research was conducted using interviews in which informants relate their experiences of language changes as well as regional variations with respect to how family members and relatives are addressed or referred to. Kinship terms are insightful and important within the field of genealogy and have implications for diverse disciplines such as law, church history, genetics, anthropology and popular custom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Matrilineal Royal Succession in the Empire of Kush: a New Proposal Identifying the Kinship Terminology in the 25Th and Napatan Dynasties As That of Iroquois/Crow
    2015 Varia Kumiko Saito The matrilineal royal Succession in the Empire of Kush: A new proposal Identifying the Kinship Terminology in the 25th and napatan Dynasties as that of Iroquois/Crow Introduction1 Various theories about the patterns of royal succes- sion in the 25th and Napatan Dynasties have been proposed. Macadam proposed a fratrilineal successi- on in which kingship passed from brother to brother and then to the children of the eldest brother.2 Török integrated the patrilineal, matrilineal, and fratrilineal succession systems.3 Kahn and Gozzoli4 take the position that the succession pattern in the 25th and in which some royal women held both the titles of Napatan Dynasties was basically patrilineal. It is snt nswt “king’s sister” and sAt nswt “king’s daughter”, noteworthy that, in Macadam’s and Török’s theories and this ground is regarded as decisive. However, this as well as the patrilineal succession, it is supposed that ignores the fact that it has been suggested that sn(t) all kings were sons of kings. I doubted this father- in its extended meaning may mean “cousin,” “aunt,” son relationship when I started inquiring into the “uncle,” “nephew,” or “niece.”5 If so, a daughter of matrilineal tradition in Kush. the previous king who had the title snt nswt could One of the textual grounds for accepting the be a cousin of the reigning king. It is also possible father-son relationship of the kings is the indirect one that the Kushite kingdom was a matrilineal society using a kinship terminology that was different from 1 This article is a revised version of my paper originally that of Egypt.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic Kinship Terminologies
    Systematic Kinship Terminologies Since kin terms are fundamentally arbitrary categories, different cultures can potentially group their relatives into a widely varying, indefinite number of classifications. Curiously, anthropologists have observed that almost every culture has constructed a system of terms that conforms to one of six widely occurring basic patterns. These are customarily designated as follows: Basic Kinship Classification Systems: 1. Sudanese 2. Hawaiian 3. Eskimo 4. Iroquois 5. Omaha 6. Crow Sudanese Kin Terms The Sudanese system is completely descriptive and assigns a different kin term to each distinct relative, as indicated by separate letters and colours in the diagram above. Ego distinguishes between his father (A), his father's brother (E), and his mother's brother (H). There are potentially eight different cousin terms. Sudanese terminologies are difficult to relate to specific social institutions, since they include no categories per se. They are generally correlated with societies that have substantial class divisions. Examples of Sudanese systems include: Latin kin terms Turkish kin terms Old English kin terms Return to Top Hawaiian Kin Terms The Hawaiian system is the least descriptive and merges many different relatives into a small number of categories. Ego distinguishes between relatives only on the basis of sex and generation. Thus there is no uncle term; (mother's and father's brothers are included in the same category as father). All cousins are classified in the same group as brothers and sisters. Lewis Henry Morgan, a 19th century pioneer in kinship studies, surmised that the Hawaiian system resulted from a situation of unrestricted sexual access or "primitive promiscuity" in which children called all members of their parental generation father and mother because paternity was impossible to acertain.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
    Two Forms of Iroquois Cousin Terminology and Their Functions Downey D. Raibourn, Indiana University This paper deals with two forms of Iroquois terminology. The Iro- quois type of kinship system is generally regarded as a relatively stable type. Nevertheless, it is a type which is transitional to a mature or more highly developed form of kinship organization. The two forms of Iroquois terminology referred to are represented among two dialectically closely related Wintun societies in central California. One society has what may be called the normal or relatively stable Iroquois terminology. The other society also possesses Iroquois organization but utilizes kinship terms which makes it possible for the kinship system to change readily into either of two other types of kinship systems. Iroquois cousin terminology is one of the six possible types of kinship systems or ways by which cousins can be classified in any society. Although the Iroquois type of cousin terminology is present among the Iroquois tribes, it is also found among many other societies throughout the world. Thus the name of a particular type of cousin terminology is derived from societies which were studied first, most intensively studied, or from areas over which a type is widely distributed. The type names are those defined by Murdock (1949) which are Eskimo, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Sudanese, Omaha and Crow. The presence of a specific type of terminology among widely separated societies does not imply historic connection or association of any kind. Present day American society classifies its kindred in accordance with principles which place it within the Eskimo type of kinship system.
    [Show full text]
  • Full-Text PDF (Final Published Version)
    Racz, P., Passmore, S., & Jordan, F. (2019). Social practice and shared history, not social scale, structure cross-cultural complexity in kinship systems. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12430 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY-NC-ND Link to published version (if available): 10.1111/tops.12430 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Wiley at https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12430 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Topics in Cognitive Science (2019) 1–22 © 2019 The Authors Topics in Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Cognitive Science Society ISSN: 1756-8765 online DOI: 10.1111/tops.12430 This article is part of the topic “The Cultural Evolution of Cognition,” Andrea Bender, Sieghard Beller and Fiona Jordan (Topic Editors). For a full listing of topic papers, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/earlyview Social Practice and Shared History, Not Social Scale, Structure Cross-Cultural Complexity in Kinship Systems Peter Racz,a,b Sam Passmore,b Fiona M. Jordanb aCognitive Development Center, Central European University bEvolution of Cross-Cultural Diversity Lab, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol Received 31 July 2018; received in revised form 10 April 2019; accepted 12 April 2019 Abstract Human populations display remarkable diversity in language and culture, but the variation is not without limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Bans. 'Cousin Marriage
    Discussion Paper No. 2016-16 The Churches’ Bans on Consanguineous Marriages, Jonathan F. Schulz Kin-networks and November 2016 Democracy CeDEx Discussion Paper Series ISSN 1749 - 3293 The Churches’ Bans on Consanguineous Marriages, Kin-networks and Democracy* Jonathan F. Schulz†‡ November 30, 2016 Abstract – This paper highlights the role of kin-networks for the functioning of modern societies: countries with strong extended families as characterized by a high level of cousin marriages exhibit a weak rule of law and are more likely autocratic. To assess causality, I exploit a quasi-natural experiment. In the early medieval ages the Church started to prohibit kin-marriages. Using the variation in the duration and extent of the Eastern and Western Churches’ bans on consanguineous marriages as instrumental variables, reveals highly significant point estimates of the percentage of cousin marriage on an index of democracy. An additional novel instrument, cousin-terms, strengthens this point: the estimates are very similar and do not rest on the European experience alone. Exploiting within country variation of cousin marriages in Italy, as well as within variation of a ‘societal marriage pressure’ indicator for a larger set of countries support these results. These findings point to a causal effect of marriage patterns on the proper functioning of formal institutions and democracy. The study further suggests that the Churches’ marriage rules - by destroying extended kin-groups - led Europe on its special path of institutional and democratic
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives: an Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology Edited by Nina Brown, Laura Tubelle De González, and Thomas Mcilwraith
    Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology Edited by Nina Brown, Laura Tubelle de González, and Thomas McIlwraith 2017 American Anthropological Association American Anthropological Association 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1301 Arlington, VA 22201 ISBN: 978–1-931303–55–2 http://www.perspectivesanthro.org This book is a project of the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges (SACC) http://sacc.americananthro.org/ and our parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Please refer to the website for a complete table of contents and more information about the book. Family and Marriage Mary Kay Gilliland, Central Arizona College [email protected] LEARNING OBJECTIVES Family and marriage may at first seem to be famil- • Describe the variety of human iar topics. Families exist in all societies and they are part families cross-culturally with of what makes us human. However, societies around the examples. world demonstrate tremendous variation in cultural under- • Discuss variation in parental rights standings of family and marriage. Ideas about how people and responsibilities. are related to each other, what kind of marriage would be • Distinguish between matrilineal, ideal, when people should have children, who should care patrilineal, and bilateral kinship for children, and many other family related matters differ systems. cross-culturally. While the function of families is to fulfill • Identify the differences between basic human needs such as providing for children, defin- kinship establish by blood and kinship ing parental roles, regulating sexuality, and passing property established by marriage. and knowledge between generations, there are many vari- • Evaluate the differences between ations or patterns of family life that can meet these needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Course No. 102..Sociology of Family, Marriage and Kinship
    Directorate of Distance Education UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU JAMMU STUDY MATERIAL For M.A. SOCIOLOGY (SEMESTER-IST) TITLE : SOCIOLOGY OF FAMILY, KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE SESSION 2020 COURSE No. SOC-C-102 LESSON No. 1-20 Course Co-ordinator : Teacher Incharge : PROF. ABHA CHAUHAN DR. NEHA VIJ H.O.D., Deptt. of Sociology P. G. Sociology University of Jammu. University of Jammu. http:/wwwdistanceeducationju.in Printed and Published on behalf of the Directorate of Distance Education, University of Jammu, Jammu by the Director, DDE University of Jammu, Jammu. 1 SCRIPT WRITERS * Prof. B.K. Nagla * Prof. Madhu Nagla * Prof. J.R. Panda * Prof. Ashish Saxena * Prof. Abha Chauhan * Prof. Vishav Raksha * Prof. Neeru Sharma * Dr. Hema Gandotra * Dr. Neharica Subhash * Dr. Nisha Sharma * Dr. Kuljeet Singh © Directorate of Distance Education, University of Jammu, Jammu 2020 • All rights reserved . No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the DDE , University of Jammu. • The script writer shall be responsible for the lesson/script submitted to the DDE and any plagiarism shall be his / her entire responsibility. Printed by : Sushil Printers /2020/650 2 Syllabus of Sociology M.A. lst Semester To be held in the year Dec. 2019, 2020 & 2021 (Non-CBCS) Course No. SOC-C-102 Title : Sociology of Family, Kinship and Marriage Credits : 6 Max. Marks : 100 Duration of examination : 2 & 1/2 hrs. (a) Semester examination : 80 (b) Sessional assessment : 20 Objectives : To demonstrate to the students the universally acknowledged social importance of Family and Kinship structure and familiarize them with the rich diversity in the types of networks of relationship created by genealogical links of marriage and other social ties.
    [Show full text]
  • (P) Family Ties (1/1) [Solution]
    (P) Family Ties (1/1) [Solution] The Yanomamö people and language follow a kinship pattern commonly called Iroquois kinship, named after the Iroquois (also called Haudenosaunee) people in eastern North America. It is one of several kinship systems used across the world. Iroquois kinship systems employ bifurcate merging, in which one’s father and father’s brother(s) are referred to by the same term, and similarly one’s mother and mother’s sister(s) are referred to by the same term. Also, a distinction is made between one’s parallel cousins (children of an aunt/uncle whose gender is the same as their sibling parent) and one’s cross cousins (children of an aunt/ uncle whose gender is opposite of their sibling parent). The merging and distinction of these terms reflect practices of inheritance and marriage in Yanomamö society. P1. 1) Rerebawa 2) Yarima 3) Mukashe 4) Bushika 5) Davi 6) Okori 7) Krihisiwa (given) P2. suaboya refers to a daughter of the mother's brother or of the father's sister soriwa refers to a son of the mother's brother or of the father's sister amiwa refers to a daughter of the mother's sister or of the father's brother eiwa refers to a son of the mother’s sister or of the father’s brother 1/3 partial credit was awarded for answering that suaboya/soriwa refers to a daughter/son (respectively) of the mother's brother (only). 1/3 partial credit was awarded for answering that suaboya/soriwa refers to a daughter/son (respectively) of the father’s sister (only).
    [Show full text]
  • Masterarbeit
    MASTERARBEIT Titel der Masterarbeit „Proto-Indo-European kinship terms“ Verfasserin Veronika Milanova angestrebter akademischer Grad Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2014 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 066 599 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Indogermanistik und historische Sprachwissenschaft Betreuerin: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Melanie Malzahn 2 Proto-Indo-European kinship terms Veronika Milanova University of Vienna 3 4 In memory of Vera Kuznetsova (1923-1997): a loving grandmother, inspiring teacher and enthusiastic historian. 5 6 Acknowledgements I am most obliged to my adviser Prof. Melanie Malzahn who suggested the research topic for my master’s thesis, provided me with her recommendations and materials, and sometimes had to lead me by the hand to the comprehension of complicated facts. She was also very kind to proof-read the text of my thesis and to underline many stupid mistakes and wrong formulations I would have otherwise overlooked. In addition, I am enormously grateful to Prof. Heiner Eichner who explained to me his theory concerning the Anatolian languages and etymological subtleties of some kinship terms. I would also like to thank all Professors of the Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, especially Prof. Stefan Schumacher for his advice about the origin of Albanian kinship terms and detailed scripts of lectures, Prof. Hans Christian Luschützky for his well-structured classes about the diachronic phonology and morphology and the history of the Italic and of the Slavic languages, and Prof. Martin Peters for his inspiring lectures about certain aspects of Indo- European grammar. Furthermore, I am indebted to Prof. Chlodwig Werba for the knowledge of Old Indic I acquired from him, to Prof.
    [Show full text]