CHAPTER - 3

COVIPOI\JEI\ITS OF Klj\J~HIP TERMS

3nO.lntroduction

Every act of behaviour is considered as a reflection nf

cultural tralts (Tyler, 1913; 8erelson, 1967; Lalitha 8a1,

1977). Linguistic units or utterances when become more than'

mere a chain of harmoniously linked sound waves with basic

grammatical functions, are treated as significant extralingui-

stic units reflecting the social, psychological and historical

cnaracteristics of the concerned community. Some stock of lan-

guage is particularistic in its mode of functions as reflectors

of social, psychological and logical manifestations of the human

ability in conceiving the world thus revealing man as 'a social.

animal. The terminology of kinship deserves special attention

in this respect in influcncil~e life and culture of the people •...--!' \

Thus language becomes not only a part of culture but also an

instrument for learning it, using it and also transmitting it

from generation to generation. Singer (1968) attributed45

pattern theory of c~lture created by individuals and groups,II

and interacts with them as well as with environments. These

units of patterns of interactions of biology and pychology

are the starting points of cultural pattern configurations.

Kinship and related terms have been v1ewed sociolo-

gically, anthropologically and psychologically. The signi-

-1/9-

fipance of kin terms as manifestations of social, psychologi­

cal, biological', kinological (anthropological), and hist.orical

aspects have been pointed out by various 6chalars like Murdock

'(1960), Eggan (1968), Lalit.ha Bai (1917) et.c. The kin t.erms0..1

have been also viewed as single-faced phenomen@~by variousA.

scholars (Vide also 1~4)

( ,

3 e l.Compet.eoce as a cyclic phenomenanan linguistic behaviour,...,-'

The concept of linguistic compet.ence (Chomsky,.... 1965)

is inadequat.e in t.hat speech event.s in a social vaccum have

no matured value. The harmonious funct.ioning of t.he lingui-Hd \')1 e 5 CICf ('I Lt-)

st.i~ compet.ence and t.he communicative compet.ence are essential1\

for t.he smoot.h funct.ioning of the social life bet.ween the mem-

bers of t.he co~munity. The individual through t.he various

stages of the acquisition of t.erms acquires relat.ed behaviour

and develops connected emotions. In a series of discrimina-

t. ion and ge neralisat ion pro c esses t. he i ndi vi dua1) i nthe 'c a n­

cept.ual space arranges t.he kins and designate them With sui­I

table terms, within the limit.s of the communal rules/which

in t.urn to some extent is cont.rolled by the economic social. , )

and political factors of larger social organisntions.

3.2.The multi-componental structure of kinship t.erms

Human behaviBur is said t.o be based on biological

factors but. §nly part of it. is biologically determined

CBerelson, 1961: 15). TerminBlogical behaviour of kinship

deserves special at.tent.ion in t.his connect.ion. The concept

of kirship ~s huilt on the two fundamental biological aspects-

the 'S8Y Gategory - functioning ~ainly on the proccreatlve aspect~

and re~atlve age in the distinction of lineal order of filjals-

. d' d t T ~ I- ; 1 ; 1 Ft·t ft b-env.t ~ age ;. n. e:3 cen. • I :. es p, I J. . 0 _ [I g.. Co a . aCo 0 r s qU.1. e 0 en e

come toys in the hands of the culturel patterning of the spe-

cific communities whic~ is more specifically manifested in the

terminology of kinship where the neutralisation of relative 9gaI

in terminology and the layering of the pseudo features in theI

kinological f~atures, as genetic fatherhood .being submerged or

ignored under sociological fatherhood as per the whims of theJ

communities (as among the Todas) marr the significance of lheI

biological imparlance of kinship and.also lerms. Thus lhe bio-

logiGal status of the married/unmarried, parenl/chi,ld, relalive

age. generation, male/female predominance at lhe on set acls

as cohesive force in the structural formalion of kinship and

related terms. In many cases the biological criteria are

heavily dependent on lhe ecological factors, past and present.

This complex nature of kinship, which is reflected on lhe ler-

minology in a sufficiently perceivable measure in different

societies led lhe scholar~ to·arri~e at conclusions from

differenl angles.

3.3.Components of kinship termsI

3.3.1.The link component

The link component as the label indicates dea15with the.J

various formatioos of kin chaios by the linking pyocess giving

rise to distinct kin relations finally designated by the res­}

pective terms. With the basic four, kin relations and two sex./

categories/eight cardinal kin categories in this component pro-

vides skeletal frame work ~f the kinship terminological stru-

cture.

It is on this skeletal frame work all other features of'

kinological structure of interdisciplinary character are

layered. The componental features however should not be.con-

sidered as compartmentali~ed and most often are found with an

overlapping nature. For example, the term /bappu:.su/ 'F' in

KG indicates the c~rdinal kin, head of the family, a status

marked person most respected kin /-u:s/ synchronically con­J

sidered as an honorafic suffix· but diachronically tracing back

to the remote ancestor /pappos/ 'grand father' of the IE family

of languages exemplify ho~ the single term becomes a multicom-

ponental phenomenax..·

3.3.2.The kinological comRonent

The kinologica1 1 component deals with the basic features

of kinship contributing to the smallest integrated group, bound

by the ties of marriage and descent in family occupation and. J

property. The biologically formed compact group with its own.

rules of descent, inheritance, iesidence adoption, preferen­/

tial marriage groups and modes, generation relative age all. ,

1. Vide Chapter.10 for definition and further details.

/2.13

reflett~on the ter~inology. In a single community terms and

concepts tend to differ and resemble each other (Vide Chapter.G).

3~3~3oThe sogiological component

Within the set up of the kingroup, social values are

determined in terms of language of kinship, which are mirrored

in the larger social organisations. The mutual interference

of kinological and larger social organisations, the changing

structure of the kinship organisation and the terminology formso..\- d,S c.u SS 10;-1..-

the central ~ore;of this component.

3.304.The psychological component

Every act of behaviour is envisaged as a psychological

phenomena~< This component deals with how the individual per­

ceives the kinship structure. of his group'and reacts to the

terminology in the acquisition of roles, relations, terms and

emotions by the process of discriminations an~ generalisations

and thus validate how thought or concept'S mould and control

language behaviour of vice versa charging a cy~lic mechanism

in the concept formations of kinship~

3.3.5.The historical component•

This component deals with how the terminology of kin-

ship can be utilised in the reconstruction of social organi-

sations synchronically as well as diachronically.

~f:~i~li~ ~a~~am. Sho"r~ELt:hePrism of KinShip ~r.'ernm-- . -- -....--- - .._--.•.-

".ehree'123a.

Planar ~rianqularlL _ .. _ ~__

3.3.6.The Linguistic component

This component deals with the anatomical study of termi-

nology of kinship and how it correlates with ext~a linguistic

fe9tures. Even an intonation may change the kin relation

(Spear, 1972) or a slight phonological change a5 nasal to nasa-rJ . I _y ,-v

lisation as in KG /ma:yi/ 'MBW and /ma:yi/ '~p.M' as contrastiva

units in the isolation of kin terms.

The extra linguistic study of kin terms in the multiCr'y·V')·_-

pon~ntal outlook is still in its infancy.

3.4.The individual as speaker and hearer in verbal- behaYlour:pecial reference to the kinship terms

The individual in the conceptual space of interactional

set up acts as binding nods of speaker and hearer at either end

of a speech'event, with linguistic and extralinguistic parameters

interrelated. Sapir (1963:17)/Bhat (1982:91) opines that non­Gi) pe. Y" CL..nN e..

linguistic concepts aF~.prio~ tp v2rbal out - put1\

and language is the instrument that make possible the pro­

duct. The verbal behaviour of the speaker in sound wave(

accompanied by extralinguistic features makes identical im­

prints on the perceptual Space of the ~earer"s mind (taken for

granted the hearer and speaker are native speakers of the

language and specifically interacting two kins, largely in the

interactional set up~,

A schematic diagram of the triangular

prism of the kin terms, cultural disciplines and the indivi­~r I \/ e.";-

dual with their subcategories is' with three planes (Vide theI'

di ag r am 3.4. 1 ).