Componential Analysis of Saora Kinship Terms

Dr. Meera Swain

Abstract

In Saora society, kinship terms do not have much distinction between terms of address and terms of reference. Saora kinship terms in the lines of father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife and father’s sister are analysed into denotative and classificatory terms. Componential analysis, through segregation and affiliation of kin members, reveals that there is terminological merging of collateral kins with the lineal ones and also of second ascending with third ascending, and of second descending with third descending generations.

1. Introduction

Componential Analysis is a method of describing the subject matter of language. It aims at constructing verifiable methods of how specific bodies of cultural (or ideational) content are coherently organized, in so far as such content is represented by words and expressions in a people’s language. A method in both semantic and cultural description, componential analysis is perhaps best characterized as a method of ideography (Goodenough, 1970).

2. Signification, denodata and attributes of the method

In the terminology of Semantics, a linguistic expression designates a class of images or concepts; it denotes a class of images or sub-class of images within the class on any one occasion of its use. Further, it signifies the criteria by which specific images or concepts included or excluded from the class of images or concepts that the expression designates. Thus, what is significant are expression connotes other images or concepts that people associate with the expressions designated, but which are not themselves definitive attributes of the designated class. For example; “the sky is cloudy” is used to designate a class or type of meteorological condition. To denote a specific image of such condition, to signify the definitive attributes of the class, and to connote such things as child and rain, componential analysis is concerned solely with the significant aspect of meaning. Thus it differs sharply from most word association approaches to semantics, which deal entirely with connotations (e.g. the semantic differential).

In its concern with signification and definitive attributes, componential analysis starts with essential definitions (listing of denodata) and seeks to reduce them to intentional definitions. For example, definition of the English term ”Uncle” would list such denodata as it is mother’s brother, father’s brother, mother’s half-brother, mother’s half-sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, and father’s half-sister’s husband. An intentional definition might be as follows: An uncle is any kinsman by blood or marriage who is simultaneously (a) male; (b) two degrees of genealogical distance from ego; (c) not lineal; (d) in a senior generation and not connected by a marital toe in other than the senior generation of the relationship (Encyclopedia of Social Sciences). Saora kinship terminology analysed and presented below (Table 1) perhaps makes it easier to understand the Saora kinship terminology in a better manner.

Table 1: Signification of kinship terms

The above-mentioned relationships in the list of denodata are presented in Figure 1 according to their connotation; consanguinity and affinity and are pictured in the relationship terminology in various ways. Abbreviations in the Figure 1 have the following meanings: E- Ego, A-After, X- Either male or female, M-male, F-Female, (-) Horizontal solid line indicates collaterality (consanguineal line), ‘I’ Vertical solid line indicates line of descent (consanguineal link), (=) The equal sign represents the marital tie (affinal link).

The various kin relationships, which include ego, alter and some mediating kinsmen, may be differentiated on the basis of properties of genealogical space i.e. presence or absence of marital ties, the relative sex and age of ego, alter and mediating kin (Goodenough, 1970). The sets of kinship terminology have the following diagrammatic representation:

1. X-X : One chain of consanguineal links and no affinal ties.

2. X=X :One affinal and one consanguineal chain.

3. X=X-X : One affinal ties and one consanguineal chain.

4. X-X=X-X : Two consaguineal chains and one affinal tie.

5. X=X-X=X : Two affinal ties and one consaguineal chain.

Figure 1: Relationship in the denodata

The significance of the kinship terms listed in Table 1 above has been analyzed in Table 2 below. The paradigm has been prepared in the light of Goodenough’s (1965, 1970) discussion. There are all together 12 columns and each one represents a discriminant variable and gives the distribution of its values in relation to the terms (Goodenough, 1965). The space in a concerned column opposite the term has been left blank, as the variables do not differentiate the designation of one term from that of any other terms. Each row stands for kinship terms and indicates the combination of discriminant variables as well as their values. The variables comprise the significance of the term, which differentiates its designation from the designation of all other terms in the paradigm. The numbers at the top of each column in Table-2 represents the variables that have been listed below along with their code numbers.

3. The Discriminant Variables

A detail description of thecolumns in Table 2 and the numbers are discussed below considering consanguinity and affinity.

The Saora kinship terminological system as mentioned in Table-1 and 2 can be analyzed, taking the various sets and their respective discriminate variables into consideration. The sets have been formed on the basis of certain logical similarities between the terms, such as, similarity of generation and nearness in relationship in the kinship network. Each set consists of two subsets and each subset in turn consists of two subsets. For instance, set ‘A’ is divided into two subsets by discriminate variables listed in column 9; and each subset is further divided on the basis of the value of the discriminating variables listed under column 10.

Terminological merger is found in many of these sets A, B, C, E, F, G, H etc. The absence of cross cousin marriage excludes some of the member set ‘B’ to be potential affines. Set ‘C’ includes a group of female affines of ego’s generation. Here the relationship with senior affines is one of the marked respect and avoidance, and with the junior affines it is one of the banter and familiarity. Set ‘D’ comprises four primary kin terms. The terms have no other denodata in Saora kinship terminological system. The member of set ‘E’ is not the potential or real affines due to absence of cross cousin marriage. In set ‘F’ there are three designate namely Yayang, Dading and Tata. There is a terminological merger in the term “Tata” which includes FaElBr and YoBrSo. This reflects in the practice of adoption of YoBrSo in case of absence of male issue in first choice. Set ‘G’ includes the sister’s son and Daughter. Set ‘H’ includes both sexes of second to third ascending generation. Set ‘I’ includes both sexes of second and third descending generation. Sets J to P are comprised of affines.

The Saora kinship system reveals that there is terminological merging of collateral kins with the lineal ones and also of second ascending with third ascending, and of second descending with third descending generations. Also there is no term of sex differentiation of grandson and granddaughter as only one term “Uleng” is there for the both.

Thus, as it is opined by Tyler (1969) in his book “ Cognitive Anthropology” – “Kinship term can not be predicted without taking into consideration the social setting of the interaction, composition of audience, sex and age relative of speaker and hearer and aims and intentions of the speaker”. The denodata of the designation can be determined in an interactive situation of context. The traditional method of genealogy is helpful only to collect base line information,while the methods of cognitive anthropology when combined with the traditional methods of data collection of kinship helps to grasp the components of the kin terms. The componential analysis also helps to know the logical background of the kinship terminology.

Table 2: Componential analysis of Saora kinship terms

4. Conclusion

In Saora society, kinship terms do not have much distinction between terms of address and terms of reference. The terms of reference are more specific in their application and complete than terms of address. The componential analysis, as a method in both semantic and cultural description, helps to know the logical background of the kinship terminology. The analysis reveals that there is terminological merging of collateral kins with the lineal ones and also of second ascending with third ascending, and of second descending with third descending generations. The traditional method of genealogy is helpful only to collect base line information, while the methods of cognitive anthropology when combined with the traditional methods of data collection of kinship helps to understand the components of the kin terms. The componential analysis helps to know the logical background of the kinship terminology.

References

• Goodenough, Ward H., 1965: "Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Componential Analysis." In Formal Semantic Analysis. Ed. E. A. Hammel. 259-87. Special issue of American Anthropologist 67 (5), pt. 2.
• Goodenough, Ward., 1970: Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Chicago: Aldine.
• Tyler, S.A., 1969: The myth of P: Epistemology and Formal Analysis, American Anthropologist,71,1,71-9.