Abstract
This chapter considers how cultural categories might be reflected in the lexicon. In particular, it argues that cultural norms can provide crucial evidence in discerning the internal semantic structure of lexical items. Evidence is garnered by taking a Cultural Linguistic approach to the study of kin terms in Kuuk Thaayorre, an Australian Aboriginal language spoken on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. The Kuuk Thaayorre lexicon comprises four distinct lexical systems (‘sublexica’), each of which expresses the same range of kin relationships at different levels of detail. The comparison of equivalent (partially co-extensive) terms from each of the sublexica sheds light on the internal structure of the cultural categories that these terms express. Moreover, behavioural norms reciprocally contribute evidence of the covert semantic structure of the kin terms themselves. The multi-stratal composition of the Kuuk Thaayorre kin lexicon thus offers an ideal opportunity to explore the vast semantic web that connects words to one another and to the world they are spoken within.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The person the kinship relationship is calculated with respect to. In the sentence my sister saw Peter’s father at the market, the speaker serves as ego in the expression my sister, while Peter serves as ego in the expression Peter’s father.
- 2.
Note that these terms explicitly express the father–child relationship as distinct from the mother–child relationship. As can be seen in Table 9.1, Kuuk Thaayorre lexically distinguishes mother and father categories across all sublexica. From the reciprocal point of view, the terms used by men to refer to their children differ from the terms used by women to refer to their own children. Thus, a man uses the vocative form Ngothon to address his children, but also the children of his brothers. (Women also use Ngothon to address their brothers’ children). Women, meanwhile, address their own and their sisters’ children as Thuuwn, this term also being used by men to address their sisters’ children.
- 3.
The spearing was reportedly a response to a sexual relationship between the spearer’s wife and the son of the man speared. The father was chosen as a target because the spearer feared the son’s powers of sorcery.
References
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D., & Raven, P. (1968). Covert categories and folk taxonomies. American Anthropologist, 70, 290–299.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1971). A method of semantic description. In Danny D. Steinberg, L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics. (pp. 436–471). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, N. (2003). Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32:13–40. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093137
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, Robert T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gaby, A. (2016). Hyponymy and the structure of Kuuk Thaayorre kinship. In J-C. Verstraete, D. Hafner (Eds.), Culture and language use (Vol. 18, pp. 159–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gaby, A. R. (Forthcoming). A grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/466505
Gould, S. H., & Kronenfeld, D. B. (2000). A new system for the formal analysis of kinship. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Green, J., Bauer, A., Ellis, E., & Gaby, A. (Forthcoming). Pointing to the body: Kin signs in Australian indigenous sign languages.
Hale, K. (1982). The logic of Damin kinship terminology. In J. Heath, Francesca C. Merlan, & A. Rumsey (Eds.), The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. University of Sydney.
Hall, A. H. (1972). A study of the Thaayorre language of the Edward River tribe, Cape York Peninsula, Queensland: Being a description of the grammar (PhD Dissertation). Brisbane: University of Queensland.
Keen, I. (2014). Language in the constitution of kinship. Anthropological Linguistics, 56, 1–53. doi:10.1353/anl.2014.0000
Kleiber, G. (1990). La sémantique du prototype: Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Kronenfeld, D. (1973). Fanti kinship: The structure of terminology and behavior. American Anthropologist, 75, 1577–1595.
Kronenfeld, D. (2009). Fanti kinship and the analysis of kinship terminologies. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 139–169). Oxford/New York: Oxford Handbooks/Oxford University Press.
Lounsbury, F. (1956). A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language, 32, 158–194.
Lounsbury, F. (1964). The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In H. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, (pp. 1073–1093). The Hague: Mouton.
Scheffler, H. W. (1978). Australian kin classification. Cambridge studies in social anthropology 23. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. In Cognitive linguistic studies in cultural contexts (Vol. 1). Amsterdam , Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://site.ebrary.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/lib/unimelb/Doc?id=10448703
Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of language and culture. Routledge handbooks in linguistics. London, New York: Routledge.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sharp, L. (1952). Steel axes for Stone-Age Australians. Human Organization, 11, 17.
Taylor, J. C. (1984). Of acts and axes: An ethnography of socio-cultural change in an Aboriginal community, Cape York Peninsula. Townsville: James Cook University PhD. http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/15001/
Whorf, B. (1945). Grammatical categories. Language, 21, 1–11.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press. http://site.ebrary.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/lib/unimelb/Doc?id=10086830
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Lexical universals of kinship and social cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 403–404. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001433
Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Kinship and social cognition in Australian languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33, 302–321. doi:10.1080/07268602.2013.846458
Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Back to “Mother” and “Father”: Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals. Current Anthropology, 57, 408–429. doi:10.1086/687360
Acknowledgements
This chapter is based on knowledge shared with me by members of the Thaayorre community, in particular Mrs. Myrtle Foote, Mr. Alfred Charlie, Mrs. Molly Edwards, Mr. Gilbert Jack, Mr. Albert Jack and Mr. Freddy Tyore; I express my heartfelt thanks for their generosity. The language itself of course remains the intellectual property of the speech community. Thanks also to Farzad Sharifian and David Kronenfeld for extensive and enlightening discussion of the analysis presented here.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gaby, A. (2017). Kinship Semantics: Culture in the Lexicon. In: Sharifian, F. (eds) Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Cultural Linguistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4055-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4056-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)