An Ethnolinguistic Analysis of Kinship Terms in Tai Ahom

Journal Homepage: http://jjll.jdvu.ac.in/journal/index.php/JJLL Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics ISSN: 2581-494X An Ethnolinguistic Analysis of Kinship Terms in Tai Ahom Khammoun Phukan & Arup Kumar Nath Tezpur University, India ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 27/07/2020 Accepted 20/12/2020 Keywords: Kinship Tai Ahom ethnography ABSTRACT The present study tries to explore and describe the phenomenon of kinship terms in Tai Ahom of Assam. The Tai Ahom language is no longer used as a mother tongue but still the language is vibrant in some domains of culture and society. As a language it is dead but as a vehicle of culture it still persists the hope of endurance. The people of the community have been consistently struggling for the maintenance since last six decades. The maintenance or the using of new kinship terms based on the forgotten symbol is one of the endeavours of projecting the „self‟ and „identity‟. The paper attempts to deal with the ethnolinguistic account of Tai Ahom kinship terms through the theoretical framework of Dell Hymes‟ Ethnography of Communication. Following the ethnographic data collection technique, we observe here the changes of kinship terms along with their cultural connotation. Here we focus on the communicative goals which influence the speakers to maintain certain linguistic behaviour interlaced with cultural values, social norms, institutions, taboos etc. 1. Introduction: Human behaviour is variable. The anthropological study of human behaviour studies the formation of human relationship with the cultural pattern. Classical Anthropologists believe that the kinship terminologies are universal in all cultures (Morgan 1877, Radcliff-Brown 1952) . According to Lamb (Lamb 1965, 37-64) to understand fully the nature of the kinship systems it is necessary to understand what kind of linguistic element these are, and what kind of linguistic relationships are they. Tai Ahom is an ethnic group of Assam, India. Prior to the British colonial rule, the Ahom dynasty had been one of the most powerful and longest ruling dynasties of Assam (Gait 2010, Barua, 1930) . Though Tai Ahom is no longer used in day to day communication, but the uses of several original Tai Ahom kinship terms in fragmented form or in original form can be seen. The language is alive in the essence of their Tai Ahom identity assertion i.e. cultural practices (Gogoi 1996, Phukan 2013, Morey 2004) . Many new generation learners are practically using the original terms of kinship address. This may be due to the reclamation of their identity, own past, documentation of their cultural anarchy and heritage, may be to revitalise or rejuvenate their language. But all these reasons are consciously and unconsciously enlivening the identity and the pattern of ethnography of communication. In that case language has been the prime marker. 1.1 Theory: This study takes the theory of Hymes‟ ethnography of communication (Hymes 1974, 1964) . While talking ethnography of communication it must need for fresh kind of data collection, need to investigate directly the use of language in context of situation so as to discern patterns PHUKAN & NATH (2020) proper to speech activity, patterns which escape separate studies of grammar, of personality of religion, of kinship and the like. On the other hand it must take as context a community, investigating its communicative habits as a whole, so that any given use of channel and code takes its place as but part of the resources upon which the members of the community draw (Hymes 1964) . Particularly this concern about the place of language in culture and society performing variable human behaviour can be understood through communication. Different aspects of cultural values and beliefs, social institution, roles and personalities, history and ecology of a community must be observed in relation to communicative events (ibid) . As our study tries to examine how one category of kinship relational term can be communicatively organised and used towards different communicative goals, therefore Hymes‟ critical approach is relevant to our study. Our study also focuses on how the communicative goals influence the speakers to arrange kinship terms in conversation such as in ancestral worship, affinal relations, kinship categories and their verbal behaviour etc. In doing so, we will also be paying attention how the socio-cultural values, norms, practices, taboos and other aspects are interlaced with the construction of kinship behaviour. The theoretical basis for the study is the model of the ethnography of communication (EofC). Hymes proposes that every communicative event has eight crucial factors to consider and these are Settings (S), Participants (P), Ends (E), Act sequence (A), Key (K), Instrumentalities (I), Norms of interaction and interpretation (N), and Genre (G) (Hymes 1974) . Here we would be taking the model to the extent that how participants and communicative goals determine kinship terms in relation to the Tai Ahom society and culture. Kinship term reflects social organisation and role relationship within the groups (Bonvillain 2019) . There are two types of kinship relations (a) affinal and (b) consanguineal. In Tai Ahom society how the affinal and consanguineal relations are maintained will be seen in the following study. The affinal relations are formed through marriage system, which starts from husband and wife and then extended to the family of both sides. On the other hand, consanguineal relations are formed through by blood relations as in parents and children. 1.2 Hypothesis: The following hypotheses have been taken to observe the kinship system in Tai Ahom society. 1. Consanguineal and Affinal relationships are distinct in Tai Ahom which say that the kinship terms are socially acknowledged biological relations 2. Tai Ahom society exhibits different kinship based on social relations or communication goals in various social settings influence the speakers to use and choice address terms. 3. Tai Ahom has adopted new form of cultural kinship terms based on original kinship terms 2. Methodology: The Tai Ahom language is no longer used in the day to day communication. Whichever remains is still in the history part and in the rituals and customs. So the data for the research is totally based on the people who know the rituals and actively busy in keeping the language alive in their 61 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 works and business. Some of the informants were teachers of the Tai Ahom language in the lower primary schools of Assam. We selected Tai Ahom persons including the Tai pandit (parson) and the teachers as informants selecting natural situations like marriage ceremony, ancestor worship ceremony, rituals of funeral, market, family settings etc. We use observation (both participant and non-participant) as the prime data in sociolinguistic ethnographies (Levon 2014, Wardhaugh 2011) and complement this data method with semi structured interview, the informal conversation and the native speaker introspection. We also tried to analyse the data from both emic and etic understandings. 2.1 Limitation: During the field visit and data collection tenure we have encountered several problems regarding the authenticity of kinship terms. We have tried to erase the problems by cross verifying the information. The paper deals with the kinship terms of Tai Ahom in both present use and past use. Some of the past use of kinship terms (mostly affinal) have either be forgotten or used in different form. Therefore, we are skipping the forgotten kinship terms keeping in mind that the exclusion will not hinder in examining the said hypotheses. Both the kinship relations consist of two types of relations, which is core and peripheral. For convenience we have followed the common ethnological abbreviations. Table 1.1: Ethnographical Abbreviation of Kinship Terms Kinship Parents Mother Father Brother Sister Son Daughter Husband Wife Spouse Siblings Child Elder Younger Abbreviation P M F B Z S D H W E G C E Y As shown in the table the abbreviated terms are used by following Ichchha Purna Rai (2010), Bantawa Kinship Terminology. In the analysis of current studies these abbreviated alphabets are used. 3. Results and Discussions: Tai Ahom Kinship 3.1 Core Consanguineal Relations (CCR): The relations made directly by the ego are called Core Consanguineal Relations. It includes Ego‟s parents which G+1, Ego‟s siblings which is G=0 and Ego‟s children which is G-1. 62 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) Table 1.2: Core Consanguineal Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation From Ego Present use F pɔ tʃɑɔ G+1 Deuta M pɔ me G+1 Ma eB pi kai G=0 kokaideu/dada yB pi noŋ G=0 bhaiti/bhai eZ pi neŋ G=0 bai/baideu yZ noŋ neŋ G=0 bhoni/bhonti S luk man G-1 lora/putra/xontan/pu D me mi G-1 ji/suali/jiek The table shows the Tai Ahom kinship terms and the present use of kinship terms by the community members for the same kin relations. It shows that all the terms are adopted from Assamese and original terms are forgotten or no use in present. The analysis of the table shows that there are nine CCR in Tai Ahom. Unlike English the terms are distinct in case of age and gender for example brother and sister. 3.2 Peripheral Consanguineal Relations (PCR): These relations are not directly related to ego, but ego‟s CCRs are bearer of these relations. Table 1.3: Peripheral Consanguineal Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation From Ego Present use FFF, FMF pu mon G+3 aju koka FFM, MFM bai tʃao / ja θao G+3 aju aita FF pu lin G+2 dodo/koka MF pu θao G+2 putha/puthadeu FM pi neŋ G+2 aita 63 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 MM ʏɑ nai G+2 enai/enaideu/aita The table shows the PCR of Tai Ahom kinship in earlier use and the present use, which includes G+3 and G+2 generations. Through Father (F): Table 1.4: PCR Through Father in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation From Ego Present use FeB ni tʃao G+1 nisadeu/bordeuta FeBW Apa G+1 epadeu/borma FyB aa tʃao G+1 daideu/dodaideu/khura FyBW khu tʃao G+1 khurideu FeZ Apa G+1 apadeu/Jethai FyZ me aa G+1 Pehi FeZH ni tʃao G+1 nisadeu/jethu FyZH aa khoi/ pu khuŋ G+1 Pehadeu The table shows the PCR generated through father and the earlier use and present use of kinship terms Through Mother: Table 1.5: PCR Through Mother in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation From Ego Present use MeB ni tʃao G+1 Nisadeu MyB po na G+1 mama/mumaideu MeZ apa G+1 Apadeu MyZ pu oi G+1 Mahideu 64 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) MeBW apa G+1 Apadeu MyBW me na G+1 Mamideu MeZH ni tʃao G+1 Nisadeu MyZH pu khoi G+1 Mohadeu The table shows the PCR through Mother and the kinship terms used in earlier times and present times by the Tai Ahom people 3.3 Consanguineal Peripheral Relations (CPR): Through Male Ego: Table 1.6: Consanguineal Peripheral Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use BS la nu G-1 bhatija (lora) BD la iŋ G-1 bhatiji (suali) ZS la nu G-1 bhagin lora ZD la iŋ G-1 bhaginsuali/(bhagini?) The table shows the Tai Ahom CPR terminologies used in earlier and present times Through Female Ego: Table 1.7: CPR in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use BS la nu G-1 bhatija lora BD la iŋ G-1 bhatiji suali ZS la nu G-1 bhagin lora ZD la iŋ G-1 bhagin suali The table shows the CPR in Tai Ahom and the earlier and present use 65 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 Through Child: Table 1.8: CPR in Tai Ahom through Child Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use SS, DS lan G-2 nati lora SD, DD lan G-2 natini suali The table shows the earlier and present use of CPR terms of Tai Ahom 3.4 Affinal Relations: 3.4.1 Core Affinal Relations (CAR): Through Father: Table 1.9: CAR of Tai Ahom through Father Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use FeBW apa G+1 Borma FyBW kheŋ tʃao G+1 Khurideu FeZH ni tʃao G+1 Nisadeu FyZH po khuŋ G+1 Pehadeu The table shows the earlier and present terms of CAR in Tai Ahom Through Mother: Table 1.10: CAR in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use MeBW Apa G+1 apadeu MyBW me na G+1 mamideu MeZH ni tʃao G+1 nisadeu MyZH khek tʃao G+1 mohadeu 66 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) The table shows the Tai Ahom CAR and their earlier and present use Through Ego‟s Siblings: Table 1.11: CAR in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use GeBW pa lu G=0 boudeu/nabou GyBW noŋ pau G=0 bhai buwari GeZH pi tʃai G=0 bhindeu GyZH luk khoi/khuŋ G=0 bhoni juwai The table shows the CAR of Tai Ahom and their earlier and present use Through Parents‟ Child: Table 1.12: CAR in Tai Ahom through Parents‟ Child Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use SWF, DHF doŋ tʃao G=0 bioi SWM, DHM doŋ me G=0 Bioni The table shows the Tai Ahom CAR through parents‟ child and their earlier and present uses Through Ego‟s Siblings: Table 1.13: CAR in Tai Ahom through Ego‟s Siblings Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use BSW lan tʃai pau G-1 bhatija buwari BDH lan tʃai G-1 bhatija juwai ZSW lan tʃai pau G-1 bhagin buwari ZDH lan tʃai G-1 bhagin juwai The table shows the present and earlier uses of Tai Ahom CAR through ego‟s siblings 67 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 Through Ego‟s Wife: Table 1.14: Affinal Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use W nao G=0 Patni WeB luŋ ta G=0 jetheri kokaideu/kokaideu WeBW lu G=0 Boudeo WyB luŋ ta G=0 Khulkhali WyBW nong tʃao G=0 Khulkhali WeZ mou pu G=0 jehahu WeZH khek pi kan G=0 domoti WyZ luŋ ta G=0 khulkhali WyZH --- G=0 halpoti The table shows the present and earlier use of Tai Ahom affinal relations through ego‟s wife Through Ego‟s Husband: Table 1.15: Affinal Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use H phu le G=0 bongohordeu HeB luŋ tʃao/jamo G=0 borjona HebW mou pu G=0 ja-juwoli (ja) HyB --- (pi noŋ) G=0 deur/gohaindeo HyBW mou pu G=0 ja-juwoli (ja) HeZ mou pu G=0 baideo/jehahu HeZH pi tʃai G=0 bhindeo/bhinihi 68 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) HyZ phu yiŋ mi G=0 nonod HyZH --- (pi noŋ) G=0 gohaindeo The table shows the present use of Tai Ahom affinal kinship terms through ego‟s husband Through His/Her Spouse: Table 1.16: Affinal Relations in Tai Ahom Kinship Relations Earlier use Generation from Ego Present use EF po tʃao G+1 Hohurdeuta EFeB po tʃao G+1 Hohurdeuta EFeBW me tʃao G+1 Hahu EFyB po tʃao G+1 Hohurdeuta EFyBW me tʃao G+1 hahu (ma/aai) EM me tʃao G+1 Hahuaai EMe/yB po tʃao G+1 mama hohur EMe/yBW me tʃao G+1 mami hahu EMe/yZ me tʃao G+1 mahi hahu The table shows the present use of affinal terms in Tai Ahom community through his/her spouse 3.5 Analysis of Tai Ahom Kinship Relations: Here we will be discussing the social and cultural values of Tai Ahom kinship terminologies. 3.5.1 Ethnographical connotations of some kinship terms: Like every other society Tai Ahom also uses some kinship terms more than consanguinity and affinity, these relations are sometimes accorded by culture and phatic communication. For example, /deuta/ is F. ego‟s wife normally addresses her father in law deuta and her father in law‟s elder brother. On the other hand, in Tai Ahom society (Assamese society as well) any aged person, similar to parents‟ age are addressed as /deuta/. The third connotation is driven by 69 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 social hierarchy present in the society. For example, the chief of a village is called gaonbuha deuta (father of village), mohajon deuta (chief of land and who has enough property) etc. Similarly, the term /aai/ means mother, which is also used to refer several culturally and socially driven relationships. /aai/ is addressed to sister in law but used only by her father in law or mother in law. Sometimes father in law‟s siblings may also call her /aai/. Any elderly similar to motherly age is also addressed as /aai/. Another connotation is that /aai/ is used to mean the women who sing devotional songs in any rituals organised at home and cultural gatherings. Another term pi tsai and in Assamese dai, khura (dada in modern Assamese culture) which is normally used to address any young man, who is supposed to be younger than G‟s father (e.g. FyB) 3.5.2 Ethnolinguistic findings of kinship terms: The Kinship terms /apadeo/ and /nisadeo/ are used to address at least eight different relationships. The Ahom children address the elder brothers and brother in laws of their parents as nisadeo and elder sister and sister in laws of their parents as apadeu. Another peculiarity observed in Ahom kinship terms is that the children of the categories of nisadeu and apadeu are treated as elders, whereas the children of the categories of dadaideu, mamaideu are treated as younger irrespective of the age difference. The hierarchy of elder/younger is intrinsic in the sense that it is the most alluring feature of Ahom kinship. As because the hierarchy of relationship does matter, not the age, we see only the kinship terms to address the elder (G+2) and (G+1) generations are mostly remained unchanged. (eg. nisadeu, apadeu, puthadeu, enaideu etc.) The normative pattern of kinship shows the patriarchal society. Core consanguineal relations are distinct in case of age and gender. i.e brothers & sisters The peripheral consanguineal relationship from father and mother side resembles only in the higher hierarchy (nisa/apa) but present uses show its difference. Unlike English there are different kinship terminologies for MB which is uncle in English and MZ which is also aunt in English. The transformation is observed within the age groups, professions etc. The older generation is maintaining the original terms in memory but the younger generation is showing interest in going back to the original terminologies EofC study finds that Tai Ahom people used gender marker to denote gender distinction, which is also found in present uses of Tai Ahom kinship relations. Ex. 1.(i) luk chai child boy „boy‟ luk ing child girl „girl‟ 70 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) (ii) mota lora male boy „boy‟ maiki suali female girl „girl‟ (iii) bhagin lora bhagin suali nephew boy nephew girl „nephew‟ „nephew‟ 3.5.3 Kinship Categories and Verbal Behaviour: Kinship categories are formed through the attachment, love, respect associated with the kinship relations. All these categories of kinship construct some domains of association. The kins belonging to particular domain achieve certain code of conduct. As in the Assamese society the domains of kinship are formed through both the sides of mother and father. The domain from mother‟s kin is normally termed as kutum from ego‟s perspective and ego‟s sister‟s in laws would be his mitir. “Mitir are relatives by marriage. But very often another category, kutum, is joined with mitir and consequent wider category of affines is called mitir-kutum. Most of the informants cannot differentiate between the two terms” (Bhattacharyya 1990) . In Tai Ahom the term kha phan incorporates all the Tai Ahom kins in one domain. Thus the world is „my relatives‟ as in Assamese the entire universe in my atmiya. The following image (Figure 4.1) shows the kinship categories from the ego‟s environment. Again verbal behaviour regarding the kinship categories is motived in Tai Ahom community. For example; a person who is senior in relation but in junior in age from the ego, the person must be addressed by the kinship term; the ego cannot call the person by taking the person‟s name. Earlier the Ahom families followed the naming pattern according to the birth of the siblings like for the first boy the proper name is lai, for the second boy aai and for the third lechai. Hence we can find the meaning of Lachit, the warrior who fought with the great Mughal and won the battle of Saraighat (Gait 2010) . Lachit is the seventh son as his name is suffixed by the seven numerical of Ahom counting formula. Thus the sister in law cannot call her husband‟s elder brothers by their name. Besides, the sister in law has to follow several behavioural patterns (i.e. politeness, norms) in front of senior persons. Such as she cannot sit at the same position while her elder brother in law sits. Again there are several codes of conduct and verbal behaviour too from the senior persons towards the juniors. The allotted code of conduct to this relationship is love and affection. G is surrounded by two different kinship categories primarily. The green area refers to the family started with ego‟s father and fathers‟ father. Whereas blue area refers to G‟s kinship category as kutum formed through mother. On the other hand, the right area of G‟s extends the blood relations with siblings and it includes the unmarried sisters. While the left side G makes relationship by giving sisters through marriage and taking wife. Thus the green is G‟s family and gharor manuh (family members), the blue is G‟s kutum and B is G‟s extension of family and S is G‟s relatives called mitir. The green and blue deserve respect and honour from G, and B deserves love, affection, fellow feelings and S deserves care and respect and love. 71 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 The green and B follows the same code of conduct and rites. For example, if a person deceases from that area, every member of that area follows the same rites; they do not eat anything till three days from the day of the deceased. All the mourning members come to one place and remember the deceased and participate in every ritual for the wellbeing of the deceased soul. At the end of the mourning day, they sit together and have some meal. Figure 1.1: Mapping Kinship Categories The diagram shows how the kinship categories are formed in relation to G and how the code of conduct is changed according to the categories and distance. The „family‟. „blood relations‟ are shown in the green (F) area and the right side of F. On the other hand the blue area shows the categories formed through mother and the left side of G shows the „wife giver‟s relatives. During those days no family member is allowed to do cooking, fishing, going to market, harvesting and such types of works and social activities. Now a days, some of the taboos are being withdrawn. During mourning day any married sisters from the family even the daughter of the deceased one can eat and do everything which are not actually allowed to the family members. The married women are not supposed to follow any rites, even they can cook rice for the mourning people. 72 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) These codes of conduct forefronts the kinship categories‟ behaviour associated with what is pariyal, atmiya, mitir and kutum. Thus elementary structures of kinship analysed by Levi Strauss (1970) is seemed contradictory in Tai Ahom kinship behaviours (Bhattacharyya 1990. Levi-Strauss 1969) . For example, several terminologies (e.g. FeB=MeB, FeS=MeS=MeBW) are similar and merged in both sides. Again, the category, which is mitir for Ego‟s father that is kutum for Ego‟s side. As Levi Strauss finds that the „wife giver‟ and „wife taker‟ is the elementary opposition of kinship relations. But we find some oppositions in code of conduct and rites performance but it is not central in Tai Ahom. 3.5.4 Mapping hierarchy of ancestor worship: Women are traditionally forbidden in the hierarchy of worship tree. „Wife giver‟ (LeviStrauss 1969) family normally does not have any rites to pay homage to their daughters who have been given to another family. The married women are not associated with the ancestor worship rituals of their parents‟ family. Thus only those who have not married are worshiped after their deceased and placed them in the hierarchy tree. They are placed in third place named as dam kan or zakorua dam which includes the minor ancestors, unmarried and childless ancestors. But before that in the 1st and 2nd place of hierarchy tree, Tai Ahom worships their forefathers. Here forefathers also include the women who are married to their family. In that case the family functions as „wife takers‟ (ibid) . 3.5.5 Rules of Affinal relations: Depending on the cultural and social structure, Tai Ahom bears some rules for affinal relations. 3.5.5.1 Exogamy: Exogamy is a marriage system in which one should marry only outside its group. The kha phan of Tai Ahom, for example: Mohung, Borgohain belong to the same family. They cannot make affinal relationship with each other even though they belong to different clan. Mohung ≠ Mohung Mohung = Deodhai Mohung ≠ Borgohain Borgohain = Buragohain Deodhai ≠ Deodhai An extensive discussion has been made by Barua (1984), and Cantlie (1984) regarding the marriage system of Assamese people (Barua 1909, Cantlie 1984) . But they focused primarily on the composite Assamese society. Although, they are assimilated but they are still followers of their rites and ceremonies. Guha (Guha 1974) says that a process of sanskritaisation and detribalisation was going on during the century and half under review (1600-1750). But the process was never complete and within the given situation new formations of semi-tribal, semi73 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 feudal state marked anti tribal features. The Ahom kings (from Sudangpha till the last king) promoted Hindu religion and ideologically strengthen the state power and thus changes were established over the cultural rituals on both the sides (Bhattacharyya 1990) . The Tai Ahom does not have any such rituals related to marriage as Brahmins do have. It is a mixture of both the rites prescribed by Hindu and Tai Ahom. The main function of Tai Ahom marriage is chaklong. Chaklong is a marriage rite which is organised at bride‟s home on the day of their marriage. Three pandits (deodhai priests) come over there and do the rites. There is another rite which is related to Hindu rites calls tupula pelua or tamul pan pelua literally offering a package of betel nut (a kind of request/permission to take away the bride). For tamul pan pelua is a formal entry of the groom‟s family to the bride‟s home and asking bride‟s parents of their daughter for marriage. The tupula pelua consists of a pair of betel nut. There is another ritual called joron diya. But here we will not be discussing the rituals and rites of marriage. Tai Ahom does not have the tradition called burha biya (literally old marriage). As Dumont (1957) , Mayer (2013) observed that Indian kinship is a reflection and encompassed part of general caste structure. But hierarchy is more evident in the code of conduct (respect/shradha-bhakti, love) throughout the kinship domain and caste is also brought under the influence of religious language in the Assamese society (Bhattacharyya 1990) . In Tai Ahom there is no caste based division within the community. They all are the descendants of khun lung khun lai. They have same blood as it is believed (G. Gohain in personal conversation). Hence all are brothers. Even having separate surnames there are some families which are perceived as in the same family like brothers. Within those families, marriage cannot happen (e.g. mohung and borgohain). In the later period of Ahom‟s region, with the assimilation of other communities of Assam, Tai Ahom had also followed caste based rules in case of marriage. But this happens while they have to marry from outside the community. Within the Tai Ahom community there is more of a code of conduct than that of caste based hierarchy. Another remarkable feature of Tai Ahom married women is that they never wear vermilion mark (sendur) on their forehead. Still we have found a few women who do not wear vermilion mark even getting marriage. The Ahom marriage ritual chaklong does not offer to perform the rite on the wedding day. Later under the influence of Hinduism the married women take the vermilion mark. 3.5.5.2 Endogamy: Endogamy is a practice of making affinal relations within one‟s social group. Endogamy is not practiced in Tai Ahom. For example: a female ego is not allowed to establish affinal relation with her father‟s sister‟s son; and male ego is not allowed to establish affinal relation with his mother‟s brother‟s daughter as shown in figure 1.2. 3.5.5.3 Sororate: Sororate: is a practice where a man can marry his wife‟s sister. In Tai Ahom, this type of relationship is allowed. However, people have started to avoid in making this relationship because of the negative attitude of mahi ma (step mother). 74 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) Figure 1.2: Mapping of Endogamy As the figure shows that a female ego is not allowed to establish affinal relation with her father‟s sister‟s son; and male ego is not allowed to establish affinal relation with his mother‟s brother‟s daughter. There are several folk beliefs and tales regarding the cruelty of mahi ma towards her steps children, for example: Tejimola, Tula aru Teja. Even in Tai Khamti , Thai and Chinese culture, we have found similar stories. 4. Conclusion: We have discussed the kinship terms as a category of addressives in the Tai Ahom society and how it does provide a unique sense of identity. The Tai Ahom kinship pattern can be summarised in three categories and these are agnatic, matrilateral and affinal. This categorisation is entirely dependent on the Tai Ahom social system, which can be discerned by the study of ethnography of communication. In addition this paper has also described the phenomena of using same address term which can be contextually manipulated in varied communication settings. This happens due to the cultural values and beliefs interlaced with the society. This observation ponders to the focal point in the EofC that the same linguistic form can be organised for quite varied linguistic ends. Further the paper exhibits the cultural exchange and the liberal use of changed kinship terminologies in the present Tai Ahom community. The term „ethnic‟ refers to a sense of belonging and togetherness according to Phukon (2002), but more importantly it can also be understood as „an organising principle used by a group of people in order to differentiate themselves from other groups in terms of race, kinship, language, customs, mode of living, culture, religion and so on‟ (Phukon 2002, Jaspal 2012) . The uses of kinship terms (maintenance and reversing shift) provide a positive sense of continuity derived from one‟s ethnic identity and this will have a positive outcome for the self-esteem principle of social category as propagated by Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory (Giles and Johnson 1987) . Thus kinship is one of the prime markers of enhancing ethnolinguistic identity. References: Barua, G. C. Ahom-Buranji: From the Earliest Time to the End of AhomRule. Guwahati: Spectrum, 1930. Print. 75 JADAVPUR JOURNAL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-77 Barua, H. Notes on the Marriage Systems of the Peoples of Assam. Sibsagar: Ananda Ram Barua, 1909. Print. Bhattacharyya, K. K. Structure and Individual in Assamese Society a Study of Family Kinship Caste and Religion. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gauhati University: India, 1990. Unpublished. Bonvillain, N. Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014. Print. Cantlie, A. The Assamese: Religion, Caste, and Sect in an Indian Village. London: Curzon Press, 1984. Print. Dumont, L. Hierarchy and Marriage Alliance in South Indian Kinship. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1957. Print. Gait, E. A History of Assam. Guwahati: Bani Mandir, 2010 [1905]. Print. Giles, H. & Johnson, P. "Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory: A Social Psychological Approach to Language Maintenance." International Journal of the Sociology of Language, no. 68 (1987): 69-100. Gogoi, P. Tai of North East India. Dhemaji: Chumphra Printers and Publishers, 1996. Print. Guha, A. "Tribalism to Feudalism in Assam: 1600-1750." Indian Historical Review 1, no. 1 (1974): 65-76. Hymes, D. "Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication 1." American anthropologist 66, no. 6 (1964): 1-34. ———. "Ways of Speaking." Explorations in the ethnography of speaking 1, no. 1974 (1974): 433-51. Jaspal, R. & Cinnirella, M. "The Construction of Ethnic Identity: Insights from Identity Process Theory." Ethnicities 12, no. 5 (2012): 503-30. Lamb, S. M. "Kinship Terminology and Linguistic Structure." American Anthropologist 67, no. 5 (1965): 37-64. Lévi-Strauss, C. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press, 1969. Print. https://archive.org/details/TheElementaryStructuresOfKinshipLeviStrauss. Levon, E. "Ethnography and Recording Interaction", In Research methods in linguistics. Edited by Robert J. Podesva and Devyani Sharma, 195-215. Cambridge: CUP, 2014. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013734.011 Mayer, A. C. Caste and Kinship in Central India: A Study of Fiji Indian Rural Society. London: Routledge, 2013. Print. Morey, S. "The Tai Languages of Assam", In The Tai-Kadai Languages. Edited by Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson, and Yongxian Luo, London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Morgan, L. H. Ancient Society; or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1877. Print. https://archive.org/details/ancientsociety00morg/page/n4 Phukan, G. "Search for Tai-Ahom Identity in Assam." NEHU Institutional Repository, 2013. http://www.dspace.nehu.ac.in/bitstream/1/11089/1/Girin%20Phukan.pdf Phukon, G. Ethnicity and Polity in South Asia. New Delhi: Intl Academic Pub, 2002. Print. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresse. Glencoe: Free Press, 1952. Print. Wardhaugh, R. & Janet M. Fuller. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. Print 76 PHUKAN & NATH (2020) 77