Introduction to the Mongolian Kinship Terminology in Inner Mongolia On the Example of Qarčin-Tümed Dialect

Kinship terminology is a reflection of the kinship system in the language. Kinship is produced through marriage and family relationships. Terminology that refers to such kinship has gradually been refined over time. Due to historical developments and influences, Mongolian kinship terminology has increased and became more specific from the 13th century until today. Loanwords are an inevitable result of contacts with different languages and Mongolian kinship terminology has been influenced by this process as well. Mongolian dialects in Inner Mongolia were influenced by Chinese and are observable in kinship terminology. This does not apply to Mongolia and Russia (where the Kalmyks and Buryats live). This article will address three aspects. Firstly, the Mongolian kinship system will be briefly introduced. Secondly, the differences in kinship terminology between Middle Mongolian and contemporary Mongolian will be shown. Thirdly, kinship terminology of one of the Inner Mongolian dialects will be introduced.

The family tree – a challenge for multicultural learning: some aspects of Swedish, Serbian and Bulgarian kinship terminology

To discover the essential differences in cultural and linguistic patterns of a certain society, we need to look no further than to the most common relations of all – those between family members. When studying, working and living in, or for instance marrying into another culture, we must not only learn, but also acquire and utilise a whole new set of relationships and terms in order to be able to function and communicate. Without this knowledge we will quickly encounter a multitude of social difficulties in the other environment. On a deeper level, if we follow the assumption that a language is the mirror of its culture, and that language also influences culture, the linguistic terms designating family relations present a number of interesting phenomena, such as: which relations occupy the centre of importance in the society; the concept and understanding of a core family; which family relations are considered “worth” having a term for, and thus meaningful to keep up; the relations after a crisis, for instance a divorce; and several more, including the transfer of family relations to friendship and business contacts. This qualitative pilot study discusses some important aspects of family relations from the perspectives of Swedish-language (Sweden and Swedish-speakers in Finland) family terminology, in comparison with Serbian and Bulgarian. The study also includes a Serbian-language survey about kinship terms, and it raises questions about further research into cultural and social patterns and connotations reflected in kinship terminology. Social and cultural differences specifically between the Serbian and Swedish spheres are highlighted; the Bulgarian and Swedish-speaking terminologies in Finland are used here mainly as references and for comparative purposes. The study combines different scientific fields in mapping out some aspects of cognitive, social and cultural patterns. It emphasises the importance and necessity of multilingual and multicultural learning instead of foreign language and culture learning, and shows some of the pitfalls and possibilities students of languages and cultures encounter when learning new kinship concepts and terms.

Kin Against Kin: Internal Co-selection and the Coherence of Kinship Typologies

Across the world people in different societies structure their family relationships in many different 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 sufficiency 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 first 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 first 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.

Kinship terminology of the Bau-Jagoi Bidayuh in Sarawak, Malaysia

This paper explores the kinship terms of the Bidayuh of Sarawak, focusing on the Bau-Jagoi subgroup variation as well as their cultural concept of kinship. The data for this paper was obtained through participant observation and interviews with four informants from two villages in Bau District, Sarawak, Malaysia, which are Kupuo Sarasot, located in the Jagoi area and Kupuo Barieng in the Singai area. The data analysis showed that the Bidayuh held on firmly to the Madih concept¸ in which all members of the village are considered ‘one family’. The Bidayuh kinship terms do refer to birth order but with emphasis on the older generations. Gender is not emphasized in the Bidayuh kinship terms but refers to a specific gender. Two main adjectives are added after the kinship terms, which are dari’ (male) and dayung (female). The address terms also focus on the older generations while most of the younger generations are addressed by their names. These two areas, even though considered under one subgroup, have their unique practices when it comes to kinship terms. However, due to modernization and urbanisation, the influence of the Malay and English language could be clearly seen in the Bidayuh address terms, replacing the Bidayuh equivalent.

The Patrilineal System of Kinship of the Older Generation in Russian and Kyrgyz Languages

Introduction. The article deals with the patrilineal system of the Kyrgyz and Russian languages. The results, studies of the terms of kinship of the patrilineal system of the Kyrgyz and Russian languages are presented. It is revealed that the kinship system of the Kyrgyz language belongs to the general Türkic vocabulary fund, and the system of kinship of the Russian language to the general Slavic vocabulary fund, and also considers the characteristic features of these lexical fields. Research methods: Synchronous-comparative, namely typological. The object of this article is a plan of the content of the lexical-semantic field of kinship in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages. Research results. The terms of kinship were considered, such as: «ata», «choӊ ata», «baba», «cuba», «zhoto» and others. The terms are conventionally named: «Patronyms of the older generation» (PSP) and we will try to determine the specifics within this functional field, based on lexicographic sources. The article will consider and identify the semantic features of the patrilineal system or patronyms of the older generation (PSP), the purpose of which is, firstly, a general characteristic that exists in the field of kinship terminology, and, secondly, the definition of the specifics of the language within this lexico-semantic group. Conclusions. The patrilineal kinship system assumes the primacy of the male generation for both Kyrgyz and Russian ethnolinguistics, but in the Kyrgyz language it has a deeper and more stable character.

Concepts “mother” and “father” in the prism of Buryat, Russian and Chinese phraseology

The article examines the concepts “Mother” and “Father” in Buryat, Russian and Chinese phraseology, which constitute the basic and most culturally significant fragment of the linguistic picture of the world, which records the spiritual and moral experience of a person and the nation as a whole. The gender approach to the kinship terminology study significantly enriches and expands the phraseological unit boundaries containing the lexemes mother and father, which are the starting point and core of family-kinship relations. The study of the family institution seems to be especially relevant for the Buryat, Russian and Chinese linguistic cultures increasingly interacting on the territory of the Republic of Buryatia. The results of investigating the corresponding phraseological units enable to indicate the following features common for the three languages: 1) setting authoritarian family model headed by father; 2) key role of concept “Mother” having unbreakable physiological ties with child, giving love, warmth and forgiveness. Unique features include equal representation of father and mother in Buryat, dominating role of mother in Russian, absolute power of father particularly over son and strictness of mother in Chinese. Identification and understanding the universal and unique mentality features of closely contacting ethnic groups will help implement effective and competent intercultural communication.

Brag-bar kinship system in synchronic and diachronic perspectives

The Rgyalrong languages are a group of unwritten non-Tibetic languages spoken in north-western Sichuan Province, China. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the Brag-bar (a dialect of Situ Rgyalrong) kinship terminology at the synchronic level, and then by using both internal reconstruction and comparative method, we attempt to explain the directionality of both formal and semantic changes in the Brag-bar terminology. Thus we demonstrate that the present kinship system of Brag-bar (Situ) originates from a system with Omaha skewing.

Dholuo Kincepts in Western Kenya

The Luo are a Nilotic people living in western Kenya, north-eastern Tanzania and in western Uganda. Their language, Dholuo, forms part of the Western Nilotic group of languages. This article presents the traditional kincepts (kinship terminology) of the Luo people as described by elders living in Central Sakwa location, Siaya County, western part of Kenya. The kincepts for consanguine as well as affine relatives in up to three ascending and five descending generations are described. The paper applies a combined linguistic and anthropological approach. Linguistically, the terms are analysed in relation to current Dholuo vocabulary, grammar and modes of expression. Anthropologically, the Luo kinship rules of patrilineality and virilocality are considered. The domain of kincepts is a research field bringing together linguistics, anthropology and history. It contributes to the inquiry of diachronic linguistics, which can provide insights on the development and interaction of related languages as well as population groups’ migratory patterns not least in parts of the world where written historical sources are scarce.

Kinship terminology in the Tamiang language: A Malay variety spoken in Eastern Aceh, Indonesia

This qualitative research examines kinship terms in the Tamiang language and the strategies of selection of the terms by its speakers. The data for this research were obtained through questionnaire, and interview from eight informants living in Bendahara Sub-District, Kejuruan Muda Sub-District, Karang Baru Sub-District, and Seruway Sub-District, Aceh Tamiang Regency, the Aceh Province. Observation was also done on the use of some of the kinship terms directly by the people in the speech community. This observation took place while the authors were socializing with the speakers in the research location. The results showed that the kinship terms in the Tamiang language are based on consanguinity and affinity. The kinship terms in the language also refer to birth order. Then, the strategies of the selection of kinship terms in the Tamiang language are based on kinship, age, gender, and descent, especially in terms of a speech event. Viewed role relationships, the terms addressed to men/women in the third layer of vertical relationships are not different. The horizontal relationship indicating the position of siblings and wife/husband is equal. The horizontal role relationship of cousins in the Tamiang language is limited to the third order. This study is very urgent since the study on kinship terms in the Tamiang language has not been conducted comprehensively before. Complete terms used to address family members in the Tamiang language are provided in this study, and it can be one of the resources for further research in the same field of study.