An Optimality Theoretic Grammar Of Human Kin Classification

An optimality theoretic grammar of human kin classification

Paul Miers English and Cultural Studies Towson University, Towson, MD 21252 ([email protected])

These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design. .

C. E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” Fitness originated with self-replication, and ultimately its meaning and role in evolutionary explanation must be tied to the cycle of life and replication of hierarchically nested evolutionary units through time. Richard Michod, Darwinian Dynamics

Abstract The assumption that kin terms reference genealogically defined types has long been challenged by evidence suggesting coancestry is not universally recognized as the basis for determining kinship. Here I propose that the central kin classification mechanism is an Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar. Input to the grammar is an asymmetric binary classification tree which splits a generationally stratified kin space into male and female branches. Output is a tree which satisfies a strict ranking of universal constraints on the use of structural markers from the input tree as second order labels for sorting sexed branches into equivalence classes. I use the proposed grammar to generate terminologies from each of the four types of classification systems first identified by Lowie and explain the underlying logic which differentiates “Iroquois,” “Dravidian,” and “Crow” type variations on bifurcate merging classification systems. . I also show how OT-KCG provides two kinds of information needed to compute the marginal value of recruiting a social partner from a coalition of individuals who both cooperate and compete for reproductive success: 1) the ordinality or rank of a targeted class relative to a sexed ego; and 2) the expected cardinality of the targeted class. I hypothesize that human OT-KCG is an evolutionary adaptation of a mechanism used by primates to compute within- and between class rankings in a linear dominance hierarchy

2

Cross-cultural variation in kinship terminologies, first documented by Morgan in the 19th century, remains puzzling. The standard model assumes that kin terms are defined over genealogical types and that classification systems differ only with respect to how kin types are partitioned and assigned reference terms. The universality of genealogical reckoning, however, has long been questioned, and the standard model fails to provide a functional explanation for variable encoding of genealogical relatedness. One alternative to the standard model treats kin terms as labels for social categories determined by rules for marriage and membership in descent groups. Another alternative holds that kin terms are generated from the relative product of other kin terms independent of any frame of reference common to all classification systems. Although both these accounts are consistent with the notion that kin classification is based on social rather than biological relatedness, they too fail to explain typological variation in classification systems by specifying constraints either on the lexicalization of an underlying conceptual space or on the recursive expansion of kin term products. Here I propose a solution to the kinship puzzle where the central kin classification mechanism is a language independent Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar operating on a binary classification tree which partitions kin space into generationally stratified equivalence classes. OT grammar was originally formulated for natural language phonology by Prince and Smolensky and first applied to kin classification by Jones. In an OT grammar, output descriptions of the input compete to satisfy a strict ranking of a set of soft constraints. The winning output is the candidate description incurring the fewest violations of a constraint ranked higher then any constraint better satisfied by rival candidates, and typological variation across grammars is limited by the number of possible constraint rankings. The kin classification model described here is not a kin detection mechanism, rather it is a mechanism for classifying members of a social group by rank within classes ordered by distance from a sexed ego. It shares certain properties with and is perhaps a human adaptation of the sort of mechanism postulated by Seyfarth and Cheney to account for the ability of baboons to differentiate changes of rank within and between matrinlines in a linear dominance hierarchy. I assume that individuals can be assigned class markers

3 based on any number of culturally variable attributes such as coresidence, perinatal care, and/or genealogical relatedness (.(Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides) The function of the grammar is to map a lexicon of kin terms to classes of these makers which have been ranked and ordered relative to a sexed ego. In this solution, cross-cultural variation is a not a function of how individuals are assigned makers but rather a function of constraints on how much information from an underlying representation (UR) of classification space is preserved in a labeled set of output classes, I assume that the UR maximizes information about the class structure of reproductive coalitions formed in a parent generation and that output constraints determine how much of that information is preserved in the class labels any ego uses to reference both generational peers and collateral members of the parent generation. I further assume that the order and rank of labeled output classes provides ego with information used to calculate the marginal utility of recruiting mates and social partners from particular classes. The key notion in this model is that rank is determined by the nodal dominance hierarchy of an output tree and social distance is encoded by the path length from a node for ego to a target class. In the baboon model social rank within matrilines is assigned according to birth order, and distance is determined by a ranking of lineages within a dominance hierarchy. Individual baboons largely ignore changes of rank within other lineages but do respond to social interactions between members of different lineages which threaten the overall ranking of lineages. The grammar of baboon kin classification thus remains fixed as individual social relationships evolve. Although human classification systems rarely switch from one type to another, local variation within types is widespread. The model proposed here treats variation within types as a function of how constraints on lexical mappings from the UR are defined across generational branches of a classification tree. It is possible for constraint rankings to vary between generations in the same classification system and for lexemes from a multi-generation dominance hierarchy to be used within a single generation to differentiate lineages which belong to the same ordinal class, i.e. are at the same distance from ego. As I will show, this notion of trans-generational variation can explain both the difference between “Iroquois” and

4 “Dravidian” type systems as well as the so-called “generational skewing” observed in “Crow” and “Omaha” type systems.

the have only one grammar for classifying social partners. In the human kin classification model, by contrast, strict ranking of constraints for each generational tree allows many different grammars to emerge

Input to the OT grammar proposed here is a set of structural makers defined at the terminal nodes of a classification tree Output is a tree satisfying universal constraints on the partitioning of those markers into labeled classes. An output tree ranks each class of markers by generation within a nodal dominance hierarchy, and classes from different branches of this hierarchy which share the same rank within a generation are wellordered by their path length from the class containing a marker for a sexed ego. In addition, the cardinality of each class within a generation is determined by the fraction of that generation’s structural markers it contains. Kin terms assigned to markers within classes inherit the rank and order of the class from the output tree. Class membership, however, need not be defined genealogically and can reflect any salient principle such as coresidence or perinatal care. Information on the rank, order, and cardinality of classes is encoded in lexical trees which assign kin terms to the classes defined by the output tree. It provides information needed to compute the marginal value of recruiting a social partner from a targeted class of individuals who both cooperate and compete for reproductive success. I hypothesize that human kin classification grammar (KCG) is an evolutionary adaptation of a mechanism used by primates to represent within- and between-class rankings in a linear dominance hierarchy. In what follows, I show how a three constraint OT kin classification grammar (OT-KCG) generates canonical versions of the four types of classification system first described by Lowie -- bifurcate collateral, lineal, bifurcate merging, and generational – when the classification tree in a nested input set is governed by the same constraint ranking. Variations on these canonical forms, such as “Dravidian,” and “Crow” type

5 terminologies can be explained by assuming that a constraint ranking can vary by generation across a nested set.

6 Typological variation and the genealogical grid The standard model of kin classification assumes that kin terms are mapped to an underlying genealogical grid where kin types defined by the marriage of ego’s parents in generation G+1. (1).

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

Δ

Ο

MB

MZ

M

F

FB

FZ

G+1

G

0

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

ego

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

B

FBD

FBS

FZD

FZS

Ego and ego’s sibs in G0 are the offspring of the two G+1 parent types, and the other pairs of male and female G0 sib types are the offspring of the matrilateral and patrilateral G +1 sib types.

Δ

Δ

O

Δ

FFZ

FFB

FF

FM

MF

O

Δ

Δ

O

O

Δ

Ch

Ch

Ch

FZ

FB

F

M

MZ

MB

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

Ch

Ch

Z

Ch

Ch

-1

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh

ChCh

Ch Ch

Ch

ChCh

G-2

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChChC hCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

Ch Ch Ch Ch

Ch Ch

ChCh Ch

G+2

G+1

G0

G

Δ

O

O

FMB

FMZ

Ch

Δ

ego

B

O

O

Δ

Δ

O

MM

MMZ

MMB

MFB

MFZ

Ch

Ch

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

O

7

The names for each of the four classification systems are from Lowie, whose typology is based on a two dimensional partitioning of G+1 kin types indicated by the dashed lines: one dimension for differentiating lineal and collateral types (± collaterality), and the other dimension for bifurcating collateral types according to the sex of the lineal type (± bifurcation).

Bifurcate collateral (Fig. 1a). The Turkish terminology assigns a unique kin term to each of the four G+1 collateral types, marking both collaterality and bifurcation. The descendents of the lineal class are all siblings who have four classes of cousins. Lineal (1b). The English terminology uses terms which distinguish lineal from collateral G+1 types but does not bifurcate collateral types. Thus aunts and uncles belong to a single G+1 collateral class and all G0 offspring of collateral types belong to a single cousin class. Bifurcate merging (1c). The Seneca Iroquois terminology bifurcates G+1collateral types but does not distinguish lineal types from same sex collateral types. This partitioning creates two G+1 classes: “parallel” (lineals and same sex collaterals), and “cross” (opposite sex collaterals). All offspring of G+1 parallel types are classificatory siblings; offspring of G+1 cross types are cross-cousins to the sibling class. Generational (1d). The Samoan terminology neutralizes both collaterality and bifurcation, creating a single class of male and female G +1 types and a single G0 sibling class where types are differentiated relative to ego’s sex.

8

a. Turkish

bifurcate collateral (+co / +bi)

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

Δ

Ο

MB dayí

MZ diaza

M ana

F baba

FB apça

FZ hala

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu

ego

G

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

B

FBD

FBS

FZD

FZS

aba (e♀); aga (e♂) kardaş (y♀; y♂)

apça çocuğu

+1

G0

hala çocuğu

b. English

lineal (+co / - bi)

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

MB uncle

MZ aunt

M mother

F father

Ο G+1

FZ aunt

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

B

FBD

FBZ

FZD

FZS

sister

brother

cousin

c. Seneca Iroquois

bifurcate merging (-co / +bi)

Δ FB uncle

ego

cousin

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

Δ

Ο

MB

MZ

M

F

FB

FZ

hakhnoʔsẽh

noʔyẽh

noʔyẽh

haʔnih

haʔnih

ake:hak

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

ego

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

B

FBD

FBZ

FZD

ahtsiʔ (e♀); kheʔkẽ:ʔ (y♀) hahtsiʔ(e♂); heʔkẽ:ʔ(y♂)

akyäʔse:ʔ

G0

G+1

Δ FZS

G0

akyäʔse:ʔ

d. Samoan

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

Δ

Ο

MB

MZ

M

F

FB

FZ

tamā

tinā

tinā

tamā

tamā

tinā

G

+1

generational (-bi; -co)

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

ego

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

B

FBD

FBZ

FZD

FZS

uso ( = ego sex ); tuagane (≠ ♀ego sex); tuafafine (≠ ♂ ego sex ); tei (y)

Figure 1: Genealogical representation of four kin classification systems M = mother; F= father; Z = sister B = brother; D = daughter; S = son; MB = mother’s brother; MZ = mother’s sister; MBD = mother’s brother’s daughter, etc. Ο, ♀ = female; Δ, ♂ = male; e = elder; y = younger; co = collaterality; bi = bifurcation

G0

9

10

G

Δ

Ο

Ο

Δ

Δ

Ο

MB

MZ

M

F

FB

FZ

+1

G

0

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

MBD

MBS

MZD

MZS

Z

ego

Δ

Ο

Δ

Ο

Δ

B

FBD

FBS

FZD

FZS

a) standard 2G genealogical tree

generation lineal

collateral

♀

♂

parallel

M, F

cross

♀

♂

♀

♂

MZ

FB

FZ

MB

generation+1 lineal+1

ego

collateral+1

collateral0 parallel0

cross0

parallel+1

♀+1

♂+1

cross+1

♀+1

♂+1

11

generation “parent” ego

♀

“sibs” “sibs”

same sex

♂

♀

same sex

opp sex

♂ ♀

♀

♂

♂

generation+1 lineal

♀ mother

collateral

♂

♀

father

aunt

♂ uncle

opp sex

♀

♂

12

b) kin classification tree

generation+1

rank

▲ lineal+1

collateral+1

“parent”

“parent’s sibs”

lineal0

collateral0

ego

♀

♂

= lineal0 sex

♀ ego

= lineal+1 sex

≠ lineal0 sex

♂ ♀

♂

♀

♂

♂

cross & parallel sibs” order

♀

≠ lineal+1 sex

cross & parallel cousins ►

13

G+1

G+1 ♀

co //

co

X

= sex (M)

♂ //

≠ sex

(MZ)

= sex

(MB)

(F)

(FB)

X

≠ sex (FZ)

a) female and male aligned cohorts: members do not mate within cohort

G+1

LIN+1 ♀

CO+1 //+1

♂ ♀

(M, F)

X+1

♂

♀

(MZ, FB)

♂

(FZ, MB)

b) merger of cohorts into reproductive coalition: members can mate within classes. LIN and // classes can mate.

G+1 2

3

LIN+1 1

CO+1

2

4

LIN0

CO0

(♀ V ♂ ego)

3

3

//0 ( = ego)

X0 (≠ ego)

4

//+1 5

♀+1

X+1

5

5

♂+1

♀+1

5

♂+1

↓ ?

(ego)

(Z, B)

(MZCh, FBCh, FZCh, MBCh )

c) projection of G0 classes as ♀ V ♂ aligned cohort dominated by LIN+1. Partitioning of G0 classes dominated by CO+1 is undefined.

14

The first level partitioning from the root (G) divides the cohort into a left branching lineal types (lin) and a right branching collateral (co) types. Partitioning of the left branch terminates with a single lineal class of male and female type markers. This left most branch is the focal class and the right collateral branch designates the male and female markers types aligned with the male and female lineal types. The first partitioning of the collateral branch, divides class markers into parallel (//) and cross (X) type. Parallel types

The tree uses five internal structural markers to generate the six terminal marker types: 1) a root node indicating the generational index; 2) a left-most terminal LIN (lineal) marker designating the male or female branch on the descending path to ego; 3) an intermediate CO (collateral) sub-root marker; and 4) two parity makers that take their sex from the LIN marker with the same generational index as the parity markers. The // (parallel) parity marker designates a path for all cohort branches with the same sex as the lineal marker, and the X (cross) marker designates a path that sums all opposite sex branches: Given a pair of G n input trees, the optimal output tree is the one that best satisfies a ranking of the three universal constraints on each Gn projection:

MAXCO

maximize collateral classes

NoCO

no collateral classes

NoPAR

no parity classes

MAXCO is a faithfulness constraint defined on the input which requires using all markers from the input tree and allows the insertion of extra parity markers in the output tree when they are dominated by a collateral marker. NoCO and NoPAR are markedness constraints defined on the output. They forbid using either the collateral marker or the parity markers to partition terminal output classes. There are six possible rankings of these constraints, but only four rankings generate effectively distinguishable tree structures:

15

MAXCO >> NoCO , NoPAR → bifurcate collateral NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO → lineal NoCO >> MAXCO >> NoPAR → bifurcate merging NoCO , NoPAR >> MAXCO → generational

16

Input tree merged G+1 cohorts

Output trees G+1 equivalence classes a) bifurcate collateral

G+1

MAX >> NoCO, NoPAR +1

Terminals dominated by LIN form one class; each terminal +1 dominated by CO forms a class.

G

CO

+1

//+1 ♀

♀, ♂

//

♀

+1

♂

CO+1

X

+1

LIN ♀

LIN+1

♂

♀

♂

b) lineal

X+1 ♀

♂

G+1

NoPAR >> MAX >> NoCO ♂

LIN = lineal CO = collateral // = parallel (= lineal sex) X = cross (≠ lineal sex) ♀ = female ♂ = male MAXCo = maximize collateral classes NoCO = no collateral classes NoPAR = no parity classes

Terminals dominated by LIN+1 form one class; terminals dominated by CO+1 form one class.

LIN+1 ♀, ♂

CO+1 // ♀, // ♂, X ♀, X♂

c) bifurcate merging

G+1

NoCO >> MAX >> NoPAR Terminals dominated by LIN+1 and +1 // form one class; terminals dominated by X+1 form one class

d) generational

NoCO, NoPAR >> MAX Terminals dominated by the G root form single class.

+1

X+1

//+1 lin ♀, lin ♂ // ♀, // ♂

X ♀, X ♂

G+1 lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂

17

markedness constraints on input tree determines partitioning for social fitness

social classes defined at terminal nodes;

marked features not expressed

a) bifurcate collateral

G

MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR

G+1

+1

LIN LIN terminals dominated by LIN node form one class; each terminal dominated by CO node forms a class.

CO

♀, ♂ //

♀

//

X

♂

♀

♀

♂

G+1

b) lineal

CO

♀, ♂ X

♂

♀

♂

G+1

NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO LIN terminals dominated by LIN node form one class terminals dominated by CO node form one class.

CO

♀, ♂ ////

♀

c) bifurcate merging

XX

♂

♀

LIN

CO

♀, ♂

♀, ♂

♂ G+1

G+1

NoCO >> MAXCO >> NoPAR terminals dominated by LIN & // nodes form one class terminals dominated by X node can form two classes

C CO O

LIN

//

♀

d) generational

♀, ♂

X

♂

X (≠ lin)

// (=lin)

♀, ♂ ♀

♀ ♂

G+1 G+1 C CO O

LIN

NoCO, NoPAR >> MAXCO

♀, ♂

♀, ♂ ////

+1

tags dominated by the G root form one class.

♀

XX

♂

♀

♂

♂

18

a) bifurcate collateral MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR

Terminals dominated by LIN form one class; each terminal dominated by CO forms a class.

All tags are lexically interpretable

b) lineal NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO

Terminals dominated by LIN form one class; all terminals dominated by CO form one class.

19

a) bifurcate collateral

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )

MAX

►{( lin♀, lin ♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )} {( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} {( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X} ( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G

*! * !

NoCO

NoPAR

*

*

* *

** !

b) lineal

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ ) {( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )}

NoPAR

* !

►{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} {( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X}

MAX

* *

* !

{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G}

NoCO

*

* **!

c) bifurcate merging

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )

NoCO

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )}

* !

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO}

*!

►{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X}

MAX

* * *

{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G

NoPAR

*

**!

d) generational

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )

NoCO

NoPAR

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )}

*!

*

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO}

*!

{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X}

MAX

* *!

►{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G} * = violation mark; ! = fatal violation; ► = winning candidate

* **

20

G+1 LIN+1

CO+1

LIN0

CO0

(♀ V ♂ ego)

3

//+1

3

//0

5

X0

X+1

5

♀+1

5

♂+1

( = ego) (≠ ego)

♀+1

♂+1

G0

G0

6

G

0

G

(♀, ♂)

0

5

0

(♀, ♂)

1

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

2

G+1 LIN+1

CO+1

2

4

1

LIN0

CO0

(♀ V ♂ ego)

(// , X)

0

G0 (♀, ♂)

1

2

G+1

c) bifurcate merging 2

3

//+1 1

//0 (♀ V ♂ ego, //) 0

X+1 2

4

X0

//0

(X) 1

( = ego)

4

X0 (≠ ego) 2

G+1

d) generational 1

G0 (♀ V ♂ ego, //, X) 0

21

+1

a) bifurcate collateral:

H(G ) = 2.25

rank

LIN+1 G

h =1.58 G0

//♀+1

//♂+1

X♀+1

X♂+1

h = 2.58

h = 2.58

h = 2.58

h = 2.58

( lin ♀, lin ♂)

+1

0

LIN

//0

(♀ V ♂ ego )

0

X0

G0

G0

G0

G0

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

1

2 +1

b) lineal:

H(G ) = 0.91

rank

LIN+1 G

CO+1 (//♀, //♂, X♀, X♂)

( lin ♀, lin ♂)

+1

h = .58

h =1.58 G0

0

0

G0

(♀ V ♂ ego )

CO (//, X)

(♀, ♂)

0

1

2

LIN

H(G+1) = 0.91

c) bifurcate merging:

X+1

//+1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂)

(X♀. X♂)

h = .58

h =1.58

rank

G+1

G0

//

0

(♀ V ♂ ego,

//0

X0 // )

0 d) generational:

(≠ ego sex)

rank

G

1

2 +1

H(G ) = 0 +1

( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂) h= 0

G0

(≠ ego sex)

(= ego sex)

G

+1

X0

G0 (♀ V ♂ ego, //, X )

0 order

22

Δ

Δ

O

Δ

FFZ

FFB

FF

FM

MF

O

Δ

Δ

O

O

Δ

Ch

Ch

Ch

FZ

FB

F

M

MZ

MB

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

Ch

Ch

Z

Ch

Ch

G-1

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh

ChCh

Ch Ch

Ch

ChCh

G-2

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChChC hCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

Ch Ch Ch Ch

Ch Ch

ChCh Ch

G+2

G+1

G

Δ

O

O

FMB

FMZ

Ch

Δ

0

ego

B

O

O

Δ

Δ

O

MM

MMZ

MMB

MFB

MFZ

Ch

Ch

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh Ch

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh

O

23

G+2 MAX >> NoCO, NoPAR 3

4

LIN+2

CO+2

2

3

5

LIN+1 1

CO+1

2

4

LIN0

co0 3

(♀ V ♂ ego )

//

0

//+2

5 0

X

// ♀

+1

6

4

//+1

3

X+1

5

5

//♂

+1

5

X♀

+1

//♀+2

X+2 6

6

//♂+2

5

1

G0 G

-1

G

-2

X♂+2

7

X♂

+1

G

+1

G

+1

G

+1

G

+1

8

6

G0

X♀+2

6

G0

G0

G0

G0

G

-1

G

-1

G

-1

G

-1

G

-2

G

-2

G

-2

G

-2

G0

G0

G-1

G-1

4 7

G

-1

G

-1

-2

G

-2

2

G

-1

G

-1

G

-2

G

-2

5

G

0

9

8

1

10

2

G

-2

G

-2

3 order

LIN+2

G+2

( lin ♀, lin ♂)

LIN+1

rank

G+1 G0

( lin ♀, lin ♂)

LIN0 (♀ V ♂ ego )

//♀+2

//♂+2

X♀+2

X♂+2

//♀+1

//♂+1

X♀+1

X♂+1

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

//0

X0

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

G-1

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

G-2

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

0

1

2 order

3

24

G+2 NoPAR >> MAX >> NoCO

4

3

LIN +2

CO+2

(♀ lin ,♂ lin)

2

3

LIN +1

CO+1

(♀ lin , ♂ lin)

1

LIN

2

0

CO0

(♀ V ♂ ego)

G-1

G-1

G-2

G-2

0

1

2

rank

aunt (♀) uncle (♂)

mother(♀) father(♂)

G+1 G0

ego

sister(♀) brother(♂)

G-1

daughter(♀) son (♂)

niece (♀) nephew (♂)

granddaughter(♀) grandson (♂)

grand niece (♀) grand nephew (♂)

0

1

G

-2

great aunt (♀) great uncle (♂)

grandmother (♀) grandfather (♂)

G+2

cousin

2 order

25

G+2 LIN +2

CO+2

♀

♂

♀

grandfather

grandmother

great aunt

♂ great uncle

G+2 LIN +2

CO+2 cousin

LIN +1

CO+1

♀ mother

♂

♀

father

aunt

♂ uncle

G0 LIN +1

CO+1 U CO+2 cousin

LIN 0 ♀ V ♂ ego

CO0

♀

♂

sister

brother G-1

LIN +1

CO+1 U CO+2 cousin

LIN 0

CO0

♀

♂

daughter

son

♀

♂

niece

nephew

G-2 LIN

+1

+1

CO U CO cousin

LIN 0

CO0

♀

♂

granddaughter

grandson

♀ grandniece

♂ grandnephew

+2

26

G +2

♀

♂

ehci¸

ehcé

G+1 LIN

+1

+1

+2

(CO ) U (CO )

♀

♂

seno¸

setá¸

♀

♂

senó¸o¸

setá

G+0 LIN +1

0

+1

+2

(CO ) U ((CO ) U (CO ))

♀ V ♂ ego

e

y

♀

♂

♀

♂

sedadae

sedé

so¸de

sečile

G-1 LIN 0

(CO0) U ((CO+1) U (CO+2))

seba

♀ setué

♂ seya

G +2 ehcé

27

G+2 +2

+2

LIN

CO

//+2

♀

♂

ebe

dede

G

X+2

//♀+2

//♂+2

X♀+2

diaza

apça

hala

CO+2

+1

LIN

CO

+2

+1

+2

//

//+1

♂ baba

dayí

+1

LIN+2

♀ ana

X♂+2

X+1

// ♀+1

//♂+1

X♀+1

X♂+1

diaza

apça

hala

dayí

X

//♀+2

//♂+2

X♀+2

diaza çocuğu

apça çocuğu

hala çocuğu

X♂+2 dayí çocuğu

G0 LIN+1

(CO+1) U (CO+2)

LIN0 ♀ V ♂ ego

CO0 y kardaş

e ♀ aga

//

X

//♀

//♂

X♀

diaza çocuğu

apça çocuğu

hala çocuğu

X♂ dayí çocuğu

♂ aba

G-1 LIN+1 0

LIN

(CO+1) U (CO+2) CO

0

//

X

yiğin

♀

♂

//♀

//♂

X♀

kiz

oğul

diaza çocuğu

apça çocuğu

hala çocuğu

X♂ dayí çocuğu

G-2 +1

+1

LIN

LIN0 torun

+2

(CO ) U (CO )

CO0

//

X

yiğin //♀

//♂

X♀

diaza çocuğu

apça çocuğu

hala çocuğu

X♂ dayí çocuğu

28

reference terms - kin dede (♂) ebe (♀)

G+2

G

G

0

-1

diaza (//♀) apça (//♂) hala (X♀) dayí (X♂)

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, apça çocuğu hala çocuğu, dayí çocuğu

2

3

ana (♀) baba (♂)

+1

G

diaza (//♀), apça (//♂) hala (X♀), dayí (X♂)

aga (e♀); aba (e♂) kardaş (y)

ego

kiz (♀), oğul (♂)

G-2

yiğin

torun

yiğin

0

1

terms of address – kin (FN = first name) G+2 dede (♂) , ebe (♀)

G+2

(CO+1 U CO+2) diaza (//♀). apça (//♂) hala (X♀), dayí (X♂)

LIN+1 ana (♀), baba (♂),

G+1

G0

CO0 U (CO+1 U CO+2) FN aga (e♀); FN aba (e♂) FN (y)

ego

G-1 G-2

FN FN 0

1

2

3

terms of address - nonkin village (FN = first name)

G

+2

FN dede (♂)

FN hala (♀) FN hala (♀) FN dayí (♂)

G+1 G

0

ego

FN aga (e♀); FN aba (e♂) FN (y)

G-1 G

FN

-2

FN 0

1

2

3

29

Type B – “Iroquois”

G+2 (lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂ X ♀, X ♂) FF, FFB, FFZ, FM, FMB, FMZ MM, MMZ, MMB, MF, MFB, MFZ

//+1

X+1

( lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂)

(X ♀, X ♂)

F, FB, FFBS, FFZS FMBS, FMZS M, MZ, MFBD, MFZD MMBD, MMZD

//0

FZ, FFBD, FFZD FMBD, FMZD MB MFBS, MFZS MMBS, MMZS

X0

( = ego sex)

(≠ ego sex)

//0

X0

(= ego sex)

(≠ ego sex)

G-1

G-1

G-1

G-1

G-2

G-2

G-2

G-2

0

1

2

G+2

G+2

//+1

G+1

X+1

parallel +1

cross +1

+1

PL =X+1 cross

G0

PL = // parallel

PL = // parallel

PL = X cross

G-1

PL= ego sex

PL≠ ego sex

PL= ego sex

PL≠ ego sex

parallel

cross

parallel

cross

G-2

G-2

G-2

G-2

G-2

0

1

2

30

G +2

♀

♂

atkso:t

hakso:t

G+1 //+1

X+1

♀

♂

♀

♂

noʔyẽh

haʔnih

ake:hak

hakhnoʔsẽh

G0 //+1

X+1 akyäʔse:ʔ

e

y

♀

♂

♀

ahtsiʔ

kheʔkẽ:ʔ

hahtsiʔ

♂ heʔkẽ:ʔ

G-1 L0 = ego sex

♀ khe:awak

L0 ≠ ego sex

♀ ego

♂

♂ ego

he:awak

♀

♂

♀

♂

hehsõʔneh

khehsõʔneh

heyẽ:wõtẽʔ

kheyẽ:wõtẽʔ

G -2

♀ kheya:teʔ

♂ heya:teʔ

31

G+2

Type A – “Dravidian” 3

4

//+2

X+2

(lin+2 ♀, lin+2 ♂, //+2♀, // +2♂)

(X+2♀, X+2♂)

FF, FFB, FM, FMZ, MM, MMZ, MF, MFB 2

3

5

//+1 +1

FFZ, FMB, MMB, MFZ

X+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

5

+1

// +1 +1

+1

X

+1

(lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂)

(X ♀, X ♂)

(= lin sex)

(≠ lin sex)

F, FB, FFBS, FMZS M, MZ MFBD, MMZD

FZ, FFBD, FMZD MB, MFBS, MMZS

FFZS, FMBS MFZD, MMBD

FFZD, FMBD MFZS, MMBS

2

1

//

0

= ego sex

4

0

X

≠ ego sex

1

G-1

G

2

0

1

G

-1

G-2

= ego sex

6

0

X0

X

//

≠ ego sex

= ego sex

7

G-1

G-1

-2

-2

6

G

6

0

G-1

G-1

-2

-2

G-1

8

-2

G

G

≠ ego sex 7

8

G

2

G

G-2

3

//+2

G+1

G

//

≠ ego sex

G-1

+2

G0

X

6

0

5

4 -2

G

6

0

= ego sex

3 -1

-2

G

//

4

0

X+2

L = PL

L ≠ PL

L ≠ PL

L = PL

parallel

cross

cross

parallel

PL = PPL

PL = PPL

PL ≠ PPL

PL ≠ PPL

PL ≠ PPL

PL ≠ PPL

PL = PPL

PL = PPL

parallel

parallel

cross

cross

cross

cross

parallel

parallel

PL = ego sex parallel

PL ≠ ego sex cross

PL = ego sex cross

PL ≠ ego sex parallel

PL = ego sex cross

PL ≠ ego sex parallel

PL = ego sex parallel

PL ≠ ego sex cross

G

-2

0

G

-2

1

G

-2

G 2

-2

G

-2

G

-2

G 3

-2

G

-2

32

Dravidian kin classification grammar differs from Iroquois in that some opposite sex G 0 classes are composed of potential mates. In the basic Iroquois grammar, by contrast, G 0 members of opposite sex cross classes are the parent’s of potential mates for ego’s children.

33

G +2 tapun

G+1 +1

+2

+1

+2

L ≠L

L =L

♀

♂

iten

timin

♀

♂

uhun

un

G0 L+1 = L+2 L0= ego sex

L+1 ≠ L+2

L0 ≠ ego sex

e

y

noatun

noatahan

L0 = ego sex

L0 ≠ ego sex

♀ ego

♂ ego

♀ ego

♂ ego

♀ ego

♂ ego

nauvnen

namanin

newum

nevin

rahniaruman

rahnpetan

G-1 L+1 = L+2 L0 = ego sex = ego sex

≠ ego sex

netan iaruman

netin petan

L+1 ≠ L+2

L0 ≠ ego sex ♀ ego noein

L0 = ego sex

♂ ego

♀ ego

rahniaunian

G +2 mwipun

noein

L0 ≠ ego sex

♂ ego

= ego sex

≠ ego sex

rahniaunian

netan iaruman

netin petan

34

“Crow”

G+1

G+1

co+1

M ego

B, Z

MZ

MB ego

MZCh

ZCh, BCh

MZChCh

B, Z

MBCh S,D

S,D

co+1

F

MBChCh

G+1 tags G0 tags G−1 tags

ZCh, BCh

FB

FZ

FBCh

FZS

FZD

FBCh

FZSCh

FZDCh

35

G+1

maximal bifurcate merging 2

3

//+1

X+1 4

4

X♀+1 1

2

//0= ego sex

5

X0 ≠ ego sex

5

// 0 6

2

X♂+1 5

X0

6

6

5

// 0 6

6

X0 6

6

6

3

G-1

G-1

0

1

// -1

X-1

// -1

X-1

// -1

X-1

// -1

2

H(G+1) = 1.25

//+1 G

+1

( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂)

rank

h = .58

G0

G-1

//0 (♀ V ♂ ego,

X0 // )

G-1

(♀, ♂)

(♀, ♂)

0

1

X♂+1

h =2.58

h = 2.58

//0

(≠ ego sex)

G-1

X♀+1

//-1

X0

X-1

//-1

//0

//-1

X-1

2 order

X0

X-1

//-1

X-1

X-1

36

G+2

Siriono

ari (♀), ami (♂)

G+1

//+1

X X♂ ami

X♀+1

ezi (♀), eru (♂)

ari

//0

X0

// 0

X0

= ego sex anongge

≠ ego sex anongge

= ego sex

≠ ego sex

= ego sex

♀ ego ari ♂ ego

♀ ego

♀ ego

yandi

akwani

♂ ego

♂ ego

♂ ego

ami

ari

akwanindu

yandi

G-1

G-1

G-1

eididi

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

// 0

G-1

X0 ≠ ego sex

♀ ego akwanindu

G-1

G-1

♀ V ♂ ego

♀ ego

♀ V ♂ ego

♀ ego

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

eididi

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

♂ ego

♂ ego

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

G-2

G-2

G-2

ake

ake

ake

0

1

G

G

G

-1

-2

ake

G-2

G-2

ake

ake

ari (♀), ami (♂)

+1

0

G-2

eididi

2

G+2 G

+1

= ego sex anongge

eididi

ami (X♂)

ari (X♀)

ezi (♀), eru (♂)

≠ ego sex anongge

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

♀ ego

♂ ego

♀ ego

ari (♀)

ari (♀), ami (♂)

yandi (♂)

yandi (♀) akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

akwanindu (♂)

♂ ego

♀ ego

♂ ego

♀ ego

eididi

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

♂ ego

ake

ake

ake

0

1

2

eididi akwanindu (♂) akwani (♀)

37

G+1

Baniata

X //+1

X♀ ina

ae (♂), ina (♀)

//0 = ego sex

X0 ≠ ego sex

// 0= ♀

+1

X♂

tuɔ

X0 = ♂

G0

ae

ha

dare

mimɔ

ina

G-1

G-1

// -1

X-1

ha

ubue

♀

♂

= ego

≠ ego

ina

ae

dare

mimɔ

// -1

X-1

G-1 ha 2

G+1

ae (♂), ina (♀)

ina (X♀)

tuɔ (X♂)

ae (♂), ina (♀)

G0

dare (= ego)

mimɔ (≠ ego) ha ae (♂), ina (♀)

G

dare (= ego),

-1

mimɔ (≠ ego)

ha

ubue

0

1

ha 2

+1

38

G+2

Trobriand

tabu

G+1 X //+1

X♀

ina (♀), tama (♂)

//0 = ego sex

// 0= ♀

X0 = ♂

G0

tabu

tama

latu (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

tuwa(e) bawada(y)

luta

G-1

G-1

// -1

X-1

latu

kada (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

♀ tabu

♂ tama

G-2

G-2

G-2

tabu

+1

X♂ kada

tabu

X0 ≠ ego sex

G-2

+1

tabu

tabu

// -1 = ego tuwa(e) bawada(y)

tabu

X-1

≠ ego

G-2

G-2

G-2

latu

(♂ ego)

tabu

(♀ ego)

tabu

G+1

tabu

tama (♂), ina (♀)

tabu (X♀)

kada (X ♂) tabu (♀)

tama (♂) G

0

(= ego) tuwa (e) bawada (y)

(≠ ego) luta

(♂ ego) kada

latu (♂ ego)

(♀ ego) tabu tabu (♀)

tama (♂) (= ego) (≠ ego)

G-1

tuwa(e) bawada(y) latu

G

latu (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

luta latu tabu

-2

0

1

tabu

luta

kada

G+2

G-1

2

39

G+1 //+1

X+1

tama (♂),

ina (♀)

+1

X+1♀

X ♂

tabu

kada

G0 //

+1

//0 =ego

+1

X X0 ≠ego

X+1♂

X+1♀

latu (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

luta tuwa(e)

bawada(y)

X0♀

X0♂ tama (♂)

tabu

G-1 //+1 //

0

latu

X+1 0

+1

X ♂

X+1♀

X

kada (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

tabu

X0♀ X-1♀ tabu

X0♂ X-1♂ tama (♂)

//-1 (= ego)

X-1 (≠ ego) luta

tuwa(e)

bawada(y)

40

G+1

G+1 lin+1 M, MZ ina

X +1 MB

LIN+1 F, FB

kada

tama

G

0

latu (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego

G-1 tabu

X +1 FZ tabu

= ego

≠ ego

LIN0

X0

tuwa(e) bawada(y)

luta

tama

tabu

-1

G latu

G

-1

kada (♂ ego) tabu (♀ ego)

= ego tuwa bawada

≠ego luta

+1

= lin tama

+1

≠ lin tabu

41

42

G+2

“Iroquois”

lin +2

co+2

lin +1

co+1 C0

ego

+1

= lin

+2

+2

≠ lin

= lin ≠ lin+1

+1

≠ lin+1

= lin

=ego

≠ ego

= ego

≠ ego

= ego

≠ ego

= ego

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

+1

≠ lin+1

= lin

≠ ego

= ego

≠ ego

= ego

≠ ego

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

Ch

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

ChCh

= ego

Ch ChCh

≠ ego

Ch ChCh

43

G+2

Turkish

MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR

LIN+2 +2 +2 (lin ♀, lin ♂)

co+2

//+2 ( //

+2

♀)

(//

PL= //+1♀

G+1

LIN+1 ( lin ♀, lin+1 ♂)

co +1

(//+1 ♀)

X+1

o

PL= // ♀

G0 LIN0

CO0

(♀ V ♂ ego) o

0

// PL =LIN

0

PPL = LIN

X 0

0

PL = // 0

PL = X 0

PPL = //

0

PPL = X

(//+1 ♂) 0

PL = // ♂

(X+1 ♀) 0

PL= X ♀

+2

♂)

PL = //+1♂

+1

//+1

X+2

+1

(X ♂) 0

PL = X ♂

+2

(X ♀) PL= X+1♀

+2

(X ♂) PL = X+1♂