DOCSLIB.ORG

Kinship, Marriage and Family

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kinship, Marriage and Family Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 Review Article GJAH (2019) 2:12 Global Journal of Arts and Humanities (ISSN:2637-4765) Kinship, Marriage and Family Kebede Lemu Bekelcha1, Aregash Eticha Sefera2 Department of Social Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Bule Hora University Introduction This paper focuses mainly on marriage, family and kinship. An- *Correspondence to Author: thropologists traditionally have a strong interest in families, along Kebede Lemu Bekelcha with larger systems of kinship and marriage. These terms are core in anthropology discipline. They are socially constructed Department of Social Anthropology, and have different meanings across culture. All these three con- Faculty of Social Sciences and Hu- cepts are discussed in this paper accordingly with necessary ex- manities, Bule Hora University amples. How to cite this article: Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera. Kinship, Marriage and Family . Global Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2019, 2:12 eSciPub LLC, Houston, TX USA. Website: https://escipub.com/ GJAH:https://escipub.com/global-journal-of-arts-and-humanities// 1 Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 Kinship relatives—people related by birth. Affines are “in-laws”—people related by marriage. Among Studies of kinship and households have long your consanguineous relatives are your been a hallmark of sociocultural anthropology. parents, siblings, grandparents, parents’ When people form an organized, cooperative siblings, and cousins. Your affines include your group based on their kinship relationships, sister’s husband, wife’s mother, and father’s anthropologists call it a kin group (Peoples and sister’s husband. In many societies, people Bailey, 2012:165). incorporate unrelated people into their family Kinship is considered the lifeblood or the social and household, acting and feeling toward them building blocks of the people anthropologists in the same way as they do consanguineous study. In non- industrialized, non-literate relatives. This practice is widespread enough cultures, kinship, marriage and the family form that there is a phrase for it: fictive kinship, in the bases of social life, economic activity and which individuals who are not actually biological political organization. The behavior and relatives act toward one another as if they were activities of people in such societies are usually kin. Adoption is the most familiar example kinship oriented (Keesing, 1981). (Peoples and Bailey, 2012:165). Anthropologists distinguish between two kinds of relatives. Consanguines are “blood” Key terms: Kinship: A network of relatives within which individuals possess certain mutual rights and obligations. Consanguines: “Blood” relatives, or people related by birth. Affines: In-laws, or people related by marriage. Fictive kinship: Condition in which people who are not biologically related behave as if they are relatives of a certain type. How kinship can be create? wife; husband and his wife's group; wife and Kinship can be created through three ways: her husband’s group, etc. (Zerihun, 2005:117). 1. Through Blood: this is the principle of 3. Through Adoption (fictive), fostering, god- consanguinity. A consanguine is a person who parenthood, etc. This is called the principle of is related to another person through blood. fictitious kinship. Fictitious kinship is, in other Consanguines include kin, not friends. words, a kind of relationship in which two Examples of consanguines are the following: a individuals create a kind of parent-child parent's (father/mother/grand-parent) relation to relationship without any blood or marriage ties a child; relation between siblings (brothers and (Zerihun, 2005:117). sisters); an individual’s relation to his/ her Why do Anthropologists study Kinship? uncle, aunt, niece or nephew; etc. (Zerihun, Anthropologists study kinship because it is the 2005:117). relationship between people through marriage, 2. Through Marriage: this is the principle of family, or other cultural arrangements. Through affinity. E.g. kinship ties between husband and kinship there is a transmission of goods, ideas and behavior. Kinship is defined as a sense of GJAH:https://escipub.com/global-journal-of-arts-and-humanities// 2 Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 being related to a person or people through In Western society and that of developed descent, sharing or marriage. This provides the nations, kinship relationships certainly are base for an examination of different styles of important in individuals’ lives. But, compared to partnership, community and reproduction many other peoples that anthropologists work across the globe. Anthropologists study kinship among, kinship is not an important organizing relationships along with the family to fully principle of society as a whole. Instead, comprehend how individual thought and different kinds of specialized groups organize behavior are influenced by these interacting different kinds of activities (Peoples and Bailey, aspects of human communities (Scupin and 2012: 192). DeCorse, 2011:307). Family of Orientation and Family of Procreation Family of Orientation: Nuclear family in which one is born and grows up. Family of Procreation: Nuclear family established when one marries and has children. Anthropologists distinguish family between the contributing members of society. The family of family of orientation (the family in which one is procreation (formed when one marries and has born and grows up). This family exists to children) (Kottak, 2009:141). develop, nurture and socialize the children into My family types using kinship diagram Descriptive and Classificatory Kinship kinship. For example, the term ‘father’ and The kinship is classified in to two types ‘mother’ are applied to our parents only and to depending on the range of application of the no one else. term. These are descriptive and classificatory 2.2. Classificatory Kinship kinship. The kinship term which applies to persons of 2.1. Descriptive kinship two or more kinship categories, is known as The kinship term which applies to only one classificatory kinship. For example, the term particular kin category is known as descriptive “cousin” is used for referring to father’s GJAH:https://escipub.com/global-journal-of-arts-and-humanities// 3 Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 brother’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s Every society has a coherent system of labeling brother’s son as well as to mother’s sister’s various types of kin. However, cultural son. Similarly, the term ‘uncle’ refers to anthropologists have identified six basic mother’s brother, father’s brother, mother’s classification systems. These are Eskimo, sister’s husband and father’s sister’s husband. Hawaiian, Iroquois, Omaha, Crow and Kinds of Kinship systems across the world Sudanese kinship systems. 6% Crow 9% Sudanese Hawaiian 36% Hawaiian Iroquois 9% Omaha Eskimo 11% Eskimo Omaha Sudanese 29% Iroquois Crow (Source: Ferraro, 2008:249) Let me see all of them as follows; is distinguished from the father’s brother, who is 1. Sudanese Kinship System distinguished from the father; the mother’s sister is distinguished from the mother, as well Sudanese kinship system (also known as as from the father’s sister. Each cousin is descriptive system) is found among the peoples distinguished from all others, as well as from of southern Sudan in Africa. Hence, the name siblings. It is therefore more precise than any of Sudanese. In this system, the mother’s brother the other systems (Haviland, 1999:311). GJAH:https://escipub.com/global-journal-of-arts-and-humanities// 4 Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 2. Eskimo Kinship System uncles and cousins) are lumped together. This Found in approximately 1/10 of the world’s emphasis on the nuclear family is related to the societies, the Eskimo kinship system is fact that societies using the Eskimo system lack associated with bilateral descent. The major large descent groups such as lineages and feature of this system is that it emphasizes the clans. Moreover, the Eskimo system is most nuclear family by using separate terms (such as likely to be found in societies (such as the US mother, father, sister, brother) that are not used and certain food collecting societies) in which outside the nuclear family. Beyond the nuclear economic conditions favor an independent family, many other relatives (such as aunts, nuclear family (Ferraro, 2008:249). 3. Hawaiian Kinship System system, which uses the least number of Found in approximately one third of world’s terms, is often associated with ambilineal societies, the Hawaiian system uses a single descent, which permits a person to affiliate term for all relatives of the same sex and with either the mother’s or father’s kin. The generation. To illustrate a person’s father, Hawaiian system is found in societies that father’s brother and mother’s brother are all submerge the nuclear family into a larger kin referred to by the single term father. In group to the extent that nuclear family EGO’s own generation, the only distinction is members are roughly equivalent in based on sex, so that male cousins are importance to more distant kin (Ferraro, equated with brothers and female cousins 2010:246). are equated with sisters. The Hawaiian 4. Iroquois Kinship System different term. Likewise EGO’s mother and In Iroquois system EGO’s father and father’s mother’s sister are lumped together under brother are called by the same term, and one term, and a different term is used for EGO’s mother’s brother is called by a EGO’s father’s sister. Thus a basic GJAH:https://escipub.com/global-journal-of-arts-and-humanities// 5 Kebede Lemu Bekelcha, Aregash Eticha Sefera., GJAH, 2019 2:12 distinction of classification is made between father’s sister). Thus terminological the sex of one’s parent’s siblings (that is distinction made between cross and parallel mother’s brothers and sisters and father’s cousins are logical, given the distinction brothers and sisters).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CO U S I N M a R R I a G E Must Ultimately Be Deduced from The
    N I N E GI LYA K CO U S I N MA R R I A G E A N D MO R G A N’S HY P O T H E S I S1 [113–129; 155–159, 168–185, 159–167; 219–235; 114–124] C O U S I N M A R R I A G E must ultimately be deduced from the realization that close blood marriage between close blood relatives is harmful. We have seen that primitive man, for a number of reasons (be they religious conservatism, ideas associated with ances- tor worship, or the desire for a peaceful organization of marriage), did not pass direct- ly from marriage between brother and sister to marriage between remote relations or strangers. Our goal in this chapter is to trace the genetic link between the Gilyak system and that of Australia, to see how the Gilyak diverged from the Australian sys- tem at the stage when marriage between two-sided first-cousins first began to come into disrepute [114].2 The great transformation towards exogamous marriage took place with extrem e slowness. Thus, as is the case even now among the Australian natives, the first form of exogamy adopted was that of enforced marriage between children of brother and sister. As the marriages occur uniformly from generation to generation, the group, in matrimonial orde r , is necessarily divided into two moieties which, following the gen- erations, exchange their women by cross-cousin marriage. In its application to indi- vidual families, this system requires that the son of a brother marry the latter’s sis- ter’s daughter, and conversely, the son of a sister, the latter’s brother’s daughter.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Marriage and Families Across Time and Place M01 ESHL8740 12 SE C01.QXD 9/14/09 5:28 PM Page 3
    M01_ESHL8740_12_SE_C01.QXD 9/14/09 5:28 PM Page 2 part I Understanding Marriage and Families across Time and Place M01_ESHL8740_12_SE_C01.QXD 9/14/09 5:28 PM Page 3 chapter 1 Defining the Family Institutional and Disciplinary Concerns Case Example What Is a Family? Is There a Universal Standard? What Do Contemporary Families Look Like? Ross and Janet have been married more than forty-seven years. They have two chil- dren, a daughter-in-law and a son-in-law, and four grandsons. Few would dispute the notion that all these members are part of a common kinship group because all are related by birth or marriage. The three couples involved each got engaged, made a public announcement of their wedding plans, got married in a religious ceremony, and moved to separate residences, and each female accepted her husband’s last name. Few would question that each of these groups of couples with their children constitutes a family, although a question remains as to whether they are a single family unit or multiple family units. More difficult to classify are the families of Vernon and Jeanne and their chil- dren. Married for more than twenty years, Vernon and Jeanne had four children whom have had vastly different family experiences. Their oldest son, John, moved into a new addition to his parents’ house when he was married and continues to live there with his wife and three children. Are John, his wife, and his children a separate family unit, or are they part of Vernon and Jeanne’s family unit? The second child, Sonia, pursued a career in marketing and never married.
    [Show full text]
  • Placement of Children with Relatives
    STATE STATUTES Current Through January 2018 WHAT’S INSIDE Placement of Children With Giving preference to relatives for out-of-home Relatives placements When a child is removed from the home and placed Approving relative in out-of-home care, relatives are the preferred placements resource because this placement type maintains the child’s connections with his or her family. In fact, in Placement of siblings order for states to receive federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, federal law under title Adoption by relatives IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they Summaries of state laws “consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant state child protection standards.”1 Title To find statute information for a IV-E further requires all states2 operating a title particular state, IV-E program to exercise due diligence to identify go to and provide notice to all grandparents, all parents of a sibling of the child, where such parent has legal https://www.childwelfare. gov/topics/systemwide/ custody of the sibling, and other adult relatives of the laws-policies/state/. child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents) that (1) the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, (2) the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and (3) the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.3 1 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Familial Generations Tutorial
    UCLA Mathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory Title FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIAL Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5m51s6k6 Author Denham, Woodrow W Publication Date 2011-09-15 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California MATHEMATICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORY: SERIES: MACT LECTURE NOTES AND WORKING PAPERS FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIAL VERSION 1.0, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 WOODROW W. DENHAM, PH. D. RETIRED INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR [email protected] COPYRIGHT 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY AUTHOR MATHEMATICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORY: SERIES: LECTURE NOTES AND WORKING PAPERS ISSN 1544-5879 DENHAM: FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIAL WWW.MATHEMATICALANTHROPOLOGY.ORG MATHEMATICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORY: SERIES: MACT LECTURE NOTES AND WORKING PAPERS FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIAL WOODROW W. DENHAM Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 Disambiguation ........................................................................................................................... 3 Basics .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Generations and kin types ..................................................................................................4 Descent generations ...........................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Family Forms and Dynamics on Children’S Well-Being and Life Chances: Literature Review
    4 (2013) Changing families and sustainable societies: Policy contexts and diversity over the life course and across generations State-of-the-art report Effects of family forms and dynamics on children’s well-being and life chances: literature review Fabrizio Bernardi, Juho Härkönen, and Diederik Boertien, with Linus Andersson Rydell, Kim Bastaits, and Dimitri Mortelmans © Copyright is held by the authors. A project funded by European Union's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 320116 State-of-the-art report Effects of family forms and dynamics on children’s well-being and life chances: literature review Fabrizio Bernardi1, Juho Härkönen2, and Diederik Boertien1, with Linus Andersson Rydell2, Kim Bastaits3, and Dimitri Mortelmans3 Abstract: In this report, we review literature on the effects of family forms and dynamics on children’s well-being. We focus on European studies, and cover five themes, namely the effects of various family forms (and separation and step-parenthood in particular) on children’s life chances, whether the effects are causal, the role of parenting and social relationships, heterogeneity of the effects, and variation in the effects over time and across countries. Keywords: family forms, separation, life chances, children, Europe Affiliation: 1. European University Institute 2. Stockholm University 3. Universiteit Antwerpen Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 320116
    [Show full text]
  • Kin Relationships
    In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 951-954). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kin Relationships Kin relationships are traditionally defined as ties based on blood and marriage. They include lineal generational bonds (children, parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents), collateral bonds (siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, and aunts and uncles), and ties with in-laws. An often-made distinction is that between primary kin (members of the families of origin and procreation) and secondary kin (other family members). The former are what people generally refer to as “immediate family,” and the latter are generally labeled “extended family.” Marriage, as a principle of kinship, differs from blood in that it can be terminated. Given the potential for marital break-up, blood is recognized as the more important principle of kinship. This entry questions the appropriateness of traditional definitions of kinship for “new” family forms, describes distinctive features of kin relationships, and explores varying perspectives on the functions of kin relationships. Questions About Definition Changes over the last thirty years in patterns of family formation and dissolution have given rise to questions about the definition of kin relationships. Guises of kinship have emerged to which the criteria of blood and marriage do not apply. Assisted reproduction is a first example. Births resulting from infertility treatments such as gestational surrogacy and in vitro fertilization with ovum donation challenge the biogenetic basis for kinship. A similar question arises for adoption, which has a history 2 going back to antiquity. Partnerships formed outside of marriage are a second example. Strictly speaking, the family ties of nonmarried cohabitees do not fall into the category of kin, notwithstanding the greater acceptance over time of consensual unions both formally and informally.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychoanalytic Conceptions of Marriage and Marital Relationships 381 Been Discussing, Since These Figures Are Able to Reanimate Pictures of Their Mother Or Father
    UNIVERSITY OF NIŠ The scientific journal FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy and Sociology Vol.2, No 7, 2000 pp. 379 - 389 Editor of series: Gligorije Zaječaranović Address: Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, YU Tel: +381 18 547-095, Fax: +381 18 547-950 PSYCHOANALYTIC CONCEPTIONS OF MARRIAGE AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS UDC 159.964.28+173.1+340.61 Zorica Marković University of Niš, Faculty of Philosophy, Niš, Yugoslavia Abstract. This work disclusses marital types and merital relationships as by several psychoanalysts: Sigmund Freud, Annie Reich, Helene Deutch, Knight Aldrich and Bela Mittelman. It analyzes kinds of relations hips, dynamics of interaction and inner mechanisms of interaction.Comparing marital types of the mentioned authors it can be seen that there is agreement among them and that they mainly represent further elaboration and "topic variation" of the basic marital types which are discussed by Sigmund Freud: anaclictic and narcissistic.Also, it can be concluded that all analysed marital types possess several common characteristics: 1. they are defined by relationships in childhood with parents or other important persons with whom a child was in touch; 2. dynamics of partner relationships is defined by unconscious motives; 3. same kinds of relationships and same type of partner selection a person repeats in all further attempts in spite of the fact that it does not give satisfactory results. Key words: psychoanalysis, marriage, partner, choice, relationships According to Si gmund Fr e ud , the founder of psychoanalysis, marital partner choice, as well as marital relationships, are defined much before marriage was concluded. Relationship with marital partner is determined by relationships with parents and important persons in one's childhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Arabic Kinship Terms Revisited: the Rural and Urban Context of North-Western Morocco
    Sociolinguistic ISSN: 1750-8649 (print) Studies ISSN: 1750-8657 (online) Article Arabic kinship terms revisited: The rural and urban context of North-Western Morocco Amina Naciri-Azzouz Abstract This article reports on a study that focuses on the different kinship terms collected in several places in north-western Morocco, using elicitation and interviews conducted between March 2014 and June 2015 with several dozens of informants aged between 8 and 80. The analysed data include terms from the urban contexts of the city of Tetouan, but most of them were gathered in rural locations: the small village of Bni Ḥlu (Fahs-Anjra province) and different places throughout the coastal and inland regions of Ghomara (Chefchaouen province). The corpus consists of terms of address, terms of reference and some hypocoristic and affective terms. KEYWORDS: KINSHIP TERMS, TERMS OF ADDRESS, VARIATION, DIALECTOLOGY, MOROCCAN ARABIC (DARIJA) Affiliation University of Zaragoza, Spain email: [email protected] SOLS VOL 12.2 2018 185–208 https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.35639 © 2019, EQUINOX PUBLISHING 186 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES 1 Introduction The impact of migration ‒ attributable to multiple and diverse factors depending on the period ‒ is clearly noticeable in northern Morocco. Migratory movements from the east to the west, from rural areas to urban centres, as well as to Europe, has resulted in a shifting rural and urban population in this region. Furthermore, issues such as the increasing rate of urbanization and the drop in mortality have altered the social and spatial structure of cities such as Tetouan and Tangiers, where up to the present time some districts are known by the name of the origin of the population who settled down there: e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Family Disruption on Children’S IZA DP No
    IZA DP No. 8712 The Effect of Family Disruption on Children’s Personality Development: Evidence from British Longitudinal Data Tyas Prevoo Bas ter Weel December 2014 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor The Effect of Family Disruption on Children’s Personality Development: Evidence from British Longitudinal Data Tyas Prevoo Maastricht University Bas ter Weel CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, Maastricht University and IZA Discussion Paper No. 8712 December 2014 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Extent to Which the Classificatory Kinship System Cor- Responds To
    T H R E E NO R M S O F SE X A N D MA R R I A G E I N LI G H T O F CL A S S I F I C AT O RY KI N S H I P 1 [26–35; 45–61; 149–161; 75–82] L E T U S N O W E X A M I N E the extent to which the classificatory kinship system cor- responds to modern norms of sexual intercourse and marriage. Among the Gilyak, at the present time at least, there is no question of any general prohibition of extra- marital sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a woman is to the Gilyak a nat- ural act, as insignificant morally as any other natural act answering the well-known needs of man. Prohibitions and limitations extend only to definite groups of persons bound by agnatic or cognatic relationship. Outside of these groups, sexual interco u r s e is not subject to any regulation, nor to religious or public condemnation [75]. Besides the prohibitions determined by relationship, extramarital intercourse knows only one restriction, the reactions of the concerned persons. The young men of a clan who have access to the women of a certain locality, when displeased with a usurper, may give full vent to their resentment for his trespassing. Such cases are, ho w e v e r , very rare. The consequences are much more serious when a married woman is the source of trouble. A stranger caught in flagrante delicto with a married woman is killed by the husband on the spot.
    [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]
  • ACQUIRING the LEXICON and GRAMMAR of UNIVERSAL KINSHIP Joe Blythe Jeremiah Tunmuck
    ACQUIRING THE LEXICON AND GRAMMAR OF UNIVERSAL KINSHIP Joe Blythe Jeremiah Tunmuck Macquarie University Yek Yederr Alice Mitchell Péter Rácz University of Cologne Central European University This article investigates how children learn an infinitely expanding ‘universal’ system of classi - ficatory kinship terms. We report on a series of experiments designed to elicit acquisitional data on (i) nominal kinterms and (ii) sibling-inflected polysynthetic morphology in the Australian lan - guage Murrinhpatha. Photographs of the participants’ own relatives are used as stimuli to assess knowledge of kinterms, kin-based grammatical contrasts, and kinship principles , across different age groups. The results show that genealogically distant kin are more difficult to classify than close kin, that children’s comprehension and production of kinterms are streamlined by abstract merging principles, and that sibling-inflection is learned in tandem with number and person mark - ing in the verbal morphology, although it is not fully mastered until mid to late childhood. We dis - cuss how the unlimited nature of Australian kinship systems presents unusual challenges to the language learner, but suggest that, as everywhere, patterns of language acquisition are closely in - tertwined with children’s experience of their sociocultural environment.* Keywords : language acquisition, kinterms, kintax, polysynthetic languages, semantic categories, morphology 1. Introduction . In order to talk about the people we meet, we need to learn who they are and how they fit within the various social networks we move in. For the child, this includes learning which people may be referred to as ‘family’ and how. In large urban, industrialized societies the number of people considered kin is relatively small.
    [Show full text]