The Punjabi Kinship Terminology as a Semantic System’

MURRAY J. LEAF
U.C .L .A .

Analysis o f kinship terminologies as semantic systems has been imbedded in t w o

opposing theoretical frameworks, a “componential” framework that connects
terminological sets to “biology” but divorces them from social structure, and a
structuralist framework that integrates terms with structure but divorces them f r o m
biology. It is suggested that both difficulties are generated by considerations
internal t o the theories but exogenous t o kinship terminologies as semantic systems.
A simple operational elicitation procedure is presented that avoids assumptions not
directly related to a clear conception o f a semantic system. On the basis o f the
Puniabi terminology, a simple reformulation o f the relationship between structures,
terminologies, and “biology” is offered.

THE SHARP DISTINCTION Kroeber ogists, and the theory of meaning it entails
drew in 1909 between kinship terminologies has been systematically rejected in philoso-
as “patterned systems of concepts” on the phy (Wittgenstein 1953:Part I). In fact, the
one hand, and “institutions” on the other distinction is plausible in the context of
(1952:175-181, 189) was connected to his kinship only if one already holds a prior
belief that kinship is somehow “held within belief in a kin-type or some similar
a rigorous biological frame” (Ibid.: 171). quasi-physical objective referent that can be
This belief took the status of a premise in cut off from other nuances that are
the methodology of analysis by “kin-types” somehow less real. It does not make sense
(Murdock 1949) and in componential without such a prior belief, and it most
analysis as it has been developed out of certainly does not make sense in many
kin-type analysis by the application of non-kinship contexts. What, for example, is
concepts from descriptive linguistics (Wal- the “denotatum” of the word “God,” as
lace and Atkins 1960:75) and, more distinct from its connotations? What are the
recently, from transformational linguistics denotata of mathematical terms, or of the
(Buchler and Selby 1969:191-217). This line familiar term “social structure”? The distinc-
of analysis, however, has become something tion appears to be clear only when it applies
of a cul-de-sac. to words whose meaning is understood as
The developers of componential analysis including the existence of some real objects
have, in the course of their work, had to to which it refers, but many words do not fit
assume solutions to an increasing number of this pattern.
major problems that have not been resolved A great many of the difficulties in
in fact and may not be resolvable. For method and interpretation in componential
example, it has been necessary to assume analysis, including those that have been
that a clear distinction can be made, in the pointed out by its proponents, can probably
semantics of a word, between its “denota- be associated with the vagueness of this fun-
tion” and its “connotation” in order to class damental operating distinction. The relation-
kin-types as the denotations of kinship terms ship between the results of componential
(Goodenough 1956:195; Wallace and analyses and social structures is one such
Atkins:67,68). Wallace acknowledges some problem.
minor difficulties with this distinction, but Basically, the position of Wallace and
not the major ones. Basically, the distinction others has been that “the semantic structure
is not operationally clear to most anthropol- to which we refer is a structure of the logical

545
546 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [73,1971

relationships of definitional meanings among date; at least as great as those associated

terms and does not pretend to describe such with componential analysis. They arise
phenomena as marital exchange or authority precisely because terminology in this case is
relations” (1960:60). “Psychologically real” clearly involved in “structure” and because
analyses based on componential analysis the issue of psychological reality therefore is
may or may not be “structurally real,” not restricted t o the description of terminol-
depending upon the ingenuity of the analyst ogy alone. What Schneider, Leach and those
in picking componential parameters to with whom they have been allied say about
organize the sets of kin-types. But there is terminology is bound up with complex
no essential connection between structure larger arguments on kinship systems and
a n d componential ordering5 as such social structures, including the debate
(Ibid.: 78). This position parallels Kroeber’s between “alliance theory” and “descent
disassociation of “institutions” from termi- theory.” In this context, the complexity of
nologies. the concerns surrounding the analysis of
I believe that the disassociation of such small sets of terms as Leach describes,
“structural reality” from terminological or such sets as are involved in defining a
patterns and the need, recognized principally lineal group, virtually precludes exhaustive
by Romney and D’Andrade (1964), to and systematic treatment of whole terminol-
establish the “psychological reality” of ogies.
componential patterns by extra-componen- There is little to be gained, at this point
tial criteria are both direct results of the in time, from further elaboration of
method of basing componential analysis on componential analysis or of the structuralist
kin-types, just as I believe Kroeber’s arguments. What is needed is a simpler
rejection of “sociology” followed directly treatment than either, one more directly
from his assumption that biology somehow related to field operations and less depen-
“limited” or contained kinship terminologies dent upon prior acceptance of philosophical
but did not limit other equally cultural or and theoretical opinion exogenous to the
semantic systems. There are in fact innum- data. What I wish to propose, first, is an
erable treatments of kinship terms, based on elicitation procedure based strictly on the
other premises, that show them to be understanding that a “semantic system” is a
intimately bound up with institutional rules system of related definitions and that termi-
and behaviors. Among these, Leach’s com- nologies embody such systems. To do so per-
parison of several subsets from different mits terminologies to be seen as complete
terminologies as “mathematical” patterns of linguistic systems, but avoids the implica-
“organizational ideas that are present in any tions of kin-types. On the basis of an anal-
society” is particularly relevant (1961:2). ysis of the Punjabi kin terminology that this
Leach makes no important use of kin-types procedure yielded, Kroeber’s position can be
or of such a distinction as that between reformulated in a way that has an obvious
denotation and connotation. Yet he is bearing on the difficulties of both of the
obviously dealing with organized systems of more esoteric lines of attack.
definitions, “semantic patterns” in both It should be recalled that a “word” in the
Kroeber’s (1952:172) and Wallace and context of semantic analysis is different
Atkins’ senses (1960:78). Schneider has from a “word” in the context of phono-
articulated the implication of this line of logical analysis. In semantics, the basis for
analysis in his general attack on the necessity the assortment of data is synonymy. All
of assuming a biological basis in the analysis forms with the same “definition” are treated
of kinship systems as “cultural systems” as equally representative of the same “word”
(1965; 1968). without regard to their sound characteristics.
There are, however, important difficulties In phonological analysis, the basic unit of
with this latter position as formulated t o concern is a range of similar sounds and
 Leaf ] PUNJABI KINSHIP T E R M I N O L O G Y 547

variants that are phonologically, not seman- taken as a point of reference, and t h e group
tically, conditioned. The sound characteris- was asked, “What are his [ ] to ego?”
tics of a particular “word” have no instrinsic and, for example “What is t h e [ ] of
or inherent relation to its semantic aspects. bhai?” The frames were supplied with each
A semantic word may have many different of six central terms in turn. As this revealed
sound representations, and a given phono- new positions, each of them was queried in
logical word may have many different turn in the same way. Through this pro-
meanings. cedure, the map was traced outward in
A procedure appropriate t o this sense of every direction until positions were reached
semantics should operate so that each that were wholly defined in terms of posi-
position of the resultant representation of tions already elicited o r that were described
the terminology will represent a single as end points. After the initial rough chart
unambiguous definition, not only of the was simplified into its present form, it was
“standard” word form presented but also of again shown t o villagers-some of whom had
its synonyms and dialect or slang equiva- been present a t the initial session, and some
lents. The totality of terms should be neither of whom had not. They were asked to ex-
more nor less than a most economical ar- hibit some comprehension of it and its use
rangement of a total system of definitions. and t o suggest any missing elements.
The meaning of each position should then be In response to what appeared to be the
totally specified in relation t o every other predilections of informants during the
position, and these specifications should per- pre-interviews that provided the central
mit prediction of the use of each concept. terms, I began the major interview by
They should, minimally, predict the con- drawing the chart upward from ego. This
tents of the domain of each term. immediately produced several loops of terms
The semantic pattern of definitions of t h e wholly determined by terms previously
Punjabi terminology, the system of t h e elicited, represented in the segments l a , l b ,
terms used t o name and describe kinship and l c of Figure 1. The subgroups represent
relationships, was constructed in the field the first set of parents’ sibling terms elicited
according to t w o basic operational rules. The on the +2 patrilateral side, the +1 matri-
first rule was t o use no symbols that did not lateral side, and the +1patrilateral side, re-
have established Punjabi names and defini- spectively. In discussing them, informants in-
tions that informants could provide. The dicated that all the other pairs o n these
second was t o use the minimum number of generational levels, as well as all superior
such symbols that could convey the full pairs, o n both sides, continued indefinitely
range of implications agreed upon by the in the same way. While t h e complexity of
users of the system. Following these rules, the pattern would have made it impossible
a “semantic map” was elicited and con- to continue elicitation o n a single two-
structed with pencil and paper in the com- dimensional piece of paper, t h e regularity of
pany of a large group of villagers sub- the generative pattern permitted it t o b e rep-
stantially in one evening, after some pre- resented with a new symbolic convention
liminary work to identify clear examples of and a rule for its interpretation. According
commonly used terms to serve as the bases ly, I suggested that the pattern of indefinite
of questioning. The terms offered were lateral extension through affines and siblings
taken down in h n j a b i in the Gurumukhi of either sex be represented with t h e figure:
script, so the maximum possible number of
those present could read them. Elicitations
proceeded outward from ego, beginning with
the six relations directly connected to ego:
miI, bCp, bhai, bhain, putar, and piitri. Once
6-z-A
This was approved unequivocally b y those
these were set down, each one in turn was present, even after I had asked several ques-
Q-1 $j
It
Leaf ] PUNJABI KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY 549

tions touching upon the possible confusion spectively. No additional symbols were con-
that may arise from representing a “sibling” sidered necessary in order to specify each
(in our terms, of course) as a person’s “af- position in the chart. Since these concepts
fine.” Their assurances indicated that no pervade the map and form the common
such confusion, or rather no such dis- parameters underlying the differentiated
tinction, was implicit in their conceptions, positions they may be regarded as native
so that there was nothing for this configura- ‘‘components” of the terminology, elicited
tion to misrepresent. The new convention directly without benefit of kin-types and
was used for the remaining positions on the without recourse to the associated theory of
initial interview, and was carried through in meaning. These “components” are not to be
subsequent cleaner representations of the regarded as exhibiting universal “biological”
first diagram. The present Figure 2 does not features in any sense stronger than that in
use it in the +1 line as a matter of pictorial which the basic ideas of the religion can be
convenience, because of the limited space said to represent a universal “theology”-
available. But it should be remembered that which is to say, I believe, that these ideas
each of the +1 terms for “uncles” and simply resemble our own ideas of biological
“aunts” carries the same kind of infinitely descent more than they resemble other ideas
extending domain as the terms for + 2 terms we have.
and above, as will shortly be more fully de- For discussing the terminology, I will
scribed. Further, in some intensive inter- follow the convention of using capital letters
views with villagers who supplied genealog- for the male relations husband, father, son,
ical information, the map was subsequently brother (H,F,S,B) and lower case letters for
used to predict terms that designated rela- the female terms wife, mother, daughter,
tions at different points would use for each and sister (w,m,d,s). In this context,
other; also this and other procedures were however, these are not to be understood as
again used to seek any types of relations that “kin-types” in the componential analyst’s
might be excluded from the chart. With the s e n s e t h e y are not in any way the equiva-
exception of some affinal usages that are lent or “meaning” of the terms in the termi-
properly regarded not as new positions but as nology; they pertain to another phenom-
synonyms for positions the map includes, the enon entirely. They describe links between
map as initially constructed on the basis of the people such as exist in their personal geneal-
first group interview withstood all these tests ogies. A genealogy is not a set of terms, but
for completeness and predictive power. Direct is rather a set of people, known and named
elicitations of semantic systems is not only individuals, who are reported as being re-
relatively easy but remarkably accurate. lated through marriage and descent-in this
case by shad? and salzhi. Genealogies record
The abstract symbols presented in Figures unique sequences of historical events. Inder
1 and 2 were agreed upon in the initial Singh was born of Anok Singh after Santokh
interview. Beside the Punjabi terms them- was; he was born once, his time and position
selves (here transliterated into Roman of birth cannot change, and it will never re-
characters) there are triangles, circles, single cur. He married one particular woman, and
lines, equal marks, and two-dimensional had two sons. She died, he married again,
space. The words mark each different and had one more son. Such is the stuff
position. The graphic symbols represent the ge nea logies-but not terminologies-are
Punjabi concepts that are used to describe made of. Terminologies contain no such per-
the general features of people who occupy sonal information.
the positions. They are admi, iirat, sakhi, People who are “in” one genealogy may
shidi, and nazdiki, and can be rendered into use any of several terminologies in desig-
English as “male,” “female,” “blood rela- nating their relationship to each other when
tionship,” “marriage,” and “nearness” re- they might meet, just as they may for any of
550 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [73,1971

-0
h 9
5 9
‘D
2 8
C
Leaf ] PUNJABI KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY 551

several reasons elect to use no kinship termi- and [nakar-] - marks the generational dis-
nology at all, preferring instead t o establish a tance from ego. Finally the internal con-
relationship on some other basis. For ex- ceptual unity of each columnar group thus
ample, people in Punjab may choose be- framed by prefixes and suffixes is marked
tween English, Punjabi, and Hindostani kin phonologically by rhyming s t e m s s o u n d
t e r m s w i t h their different semantic imports. similarity thus symbolizing descent similar-
People who are relations but who meet on ity. For example, the matrilineal superior
occasion in occupational or political capac- kin above +1are designated with the stem
ities can use such address terms as “head- -nan-, the patrilateral equivalent with the
master” or “Sardarji” (an honorific or polite rhyming -did-. The matrilateral kin of +1,
general name by which Sikhs are addressed). bhai and bhain of ma, are all designated with
Even within a terminology, different terms stems rhyming with ma: mama, mtFsaR,
may be chosen. A person addressed as miimi, and mas; Their two-way suffix pat-
“headmaster” by a villager on one occasion tern, too, links them to their superiors while
was his terminological “grandfather” (dads) the use of the less common a R masculine
by genealogical reckoning, although he was suffix links them strongly in another
his inferior in relative age. On some oc- rhyming pattern that gives this generation
casions, predictable when the terminology is unusual unity. This pattern carries over to
understood, this latter term, signifying the the patrilateral +1 group, where an overall
use of the older man’s name by the younger, use of rhyming is similar. The rhyming and
was appropriate, but on others the term cacii grouping of the inferior kin -dot, -parot-,
(father’s younger brother) was more polite. -pardot- is quite obvious in the chart. In sup-
Several visible features of the map porting the “spatial” arrangements, these lin-
provide assurance that it has “psychological guistic patterns support the semantics of the
reality” in a number of senses. system because the spatial relations have per-
The definitions are embedded in an vasive cultural meanings that appear in the
elaborate phonological ordering of the use of the system.
standard or basic word-forms I have To understand the use of the termino-
recorded. (For this reason, these forms logical map, it is important to understand
appear to be the core forms to which the mode of extension to the side previously
phonologically disparate synonyms are indicated and to know, too, that my
equated.) The phonological pattern dupli- informants stressed that the terms at the top
cates the spatial ordering that is seen in the and bottom of the chart are the ends of their
chart and represented by the general lines. The father of nakardiida in +4 is
symbols. From ego’s generation upward, for “nothing” to ego-not a relative. The same is
example, terms occur in pairs. Suffixes in true for the son or daughter of -4 nakar
this group consist in the regular Punjabi male parota. There is, thus, no presumption in the
[ a ] and female [ i ] markers, and distinguish system that a person can always be classified
only male and female terms. Coincident with by tracing up to a common relative and then
this phonological pattern, each term applies back down, as in our Western terminologies.
to a class defined as including both affines Rather, the relationships to remote kin have
and consanguines, as indicated above. Con- to be traced laterally out through nearer
trasting with this system, the -1 generation links. If anything, the map thus presumes a
and those below use a four-way system of social, rather than a purely “biological,”
suffixes: two for males, and two for females. network in the world to which kin terms are
These permit and carry the definitional dis- applied.
tinction of four types of positions: affinal Since relationship is cut off sharply in the
male, affinal female, consanguine male, and vertical direction, the main generative
consanguine female. Cross-cutting both mechanism that permits distant kin to be
groups, a system of prefixes-[none], [par-], reckoned laterally is precisely the configura-
552 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [73, 1971

tion of terms, at each level superior to ego, the meaning of the chart, and its terms,
that distinguishes sex but not specifically stopped with genealogical relationships
affinal as against consanguineal status. alone.
Consider the specific pattern The logical chaos that could arise from
overlapping domains does not arise because
I the terms are seen not only in relation to

i
genealogical links but also in relation to the
marriage and residence rules and the rules
for address. These rules amount to a series of
unambiguous guides for choosing between
matrilateral and patrilateral categories. First,
the general marriage (or “incest”) rule
stipulates that a man and woman may not
marry if they have any of what are called the
plva car (the “complete four”) in common:
in the patrilateral side of generation +2. these are father’s father’s group, father’s
Term d c d i designates all those who are “sis- mother’s group, mother’s father’s group, and
ter” and all those who are “wife” to d d t i . mother’s mother’s kin group. This rule,
And dadc, in turn, names all those who are a whatever else it may or may not do, says
“brother” or a “husband” to dtidi. As noted, that by definition matrilateral kin and patri-
this is understood explicitly as a logical cir- lateral kin are unconnected. Therefore, one
cularity that generates an unending chain of or the other type of term, but not both,
potential patrilateral relations. If dadti has a must be applied to any superior relation.
wife and sisters, each of these is dtidl: (The Given this, the next most general rule is that
merging descent lines from 0 to +1show that if a known genealogical link exists, address
all daughters of +1 relations are “sister,” will be on the basis of the relative through
so that this, alone, is a large domain.) All whom it is traced most closely. If no such
who are brother t o them, not only the first link exists, the next relevant rule is that
diidii, are in turn dtidti to ego. All who are people from mother’s village are addressed
sister or wife to each of these, in turn, will matrilaterally. (This rule assumes the rule of
be further dtidis, and so on ad infiniturn. patrilocal residence upon marriage, and also
This type of extension occurs, of course, not assumes the application of “sibling” terms to
only on the +2 level but at all superior levels, covillagers along with the prohibition of
for two reasons. First, all of the male-female intravillage marriage.) Finally, if residence is
pairs on these levels are understood as con- not known, the general rule exists that patri-
structed with the same formal properties as lateral terms and not matrilateral terms are
the dtida-dcidi pair. Secondly, all generations to be used for polite address. With these
ancestral to an unlimited class must be them- ancillary rules, and only with them, any alter
selves unlimited by definition, as must any can be classified for ego, and the domains of
classes descendant from such an unlimited any terms or group of terms can be gener-
class. ated. They operate like the rules for opera-
The matrilateral terms are arranged in tion with zero, or the rules for manipulation
precisely the same way as the patrilateral of signs, in mathematics.
terms. This means that in terms of the logic To predict any pair of categories that two
of genealogical reckoning alone, the matri- people will use toward each other if their
lateral and the patrilateral terms have, linking genealogical relationships are known,
ultimately, overlapping domains. Every male one simply starts at ego and traces the
on ego’s +2 generation can be classed either genealogical links to alter onto the map. To
as n h i or dadz, and so on throughout the find the reciprocal, alter is taken forego, and
chart-or rather they could be so classified if the links are traced in reverse order. For
Leaf ] PUNJABI KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY 553

example, m F is nunu. This can be seen by those we map exclusively into it. Because of
beginning with ego in the chart and tracing the many implications that can be drawn
the consanguineal line up t o m , thence to from the relevant institutional rules, the
her F. Similarly, mFFsdH is also nnna. This answer to this question can be quite
can be derived by beginning at ego, elaborate. For example, mini is any man of
following the consanguineal line to m , then ego’s m F generation associated with the
up to her F, thence again t o his F. From village of birth. Such a male can be, by
him, the consanguineal link t o his s is simple logic, described as being old and
traced, thence down t o her d and finally respected, and as having a fairly clear
across the affinal link t o her H, who is nEnii. relation t o ego through his mother. She has a
The reciprocal of each of the terms can be residual right, legally and traditionally, to
obtained by reading backward along t h e maintenance in her village of birth, and
genealogical chain, which should be reversed hence an interest and a position in its
as a pencil and paper exercise outside the organization. Because of this, the men from
terminological chart. The reversed m F chain, this village have a n interest in her welfare.
starting with m F as the new ego is dS o r dd. The senior men, nEni t o ego but-bup, t a i a ,
Turning to the chart, and starting again at or cEca t o mi,would be the ones upon whom
ego, d S can be seen to be dot& dd is d o t i the obligations t o protect t h e woman’s inter-
both the reported reciprocals of nunu. est would fall, and who must be depended
Similarly, reversing mFFsdH yields upon for it, since they hold the property
wmBSdS. Beginning with ego o n the chart rights in her village. Ego’s relation t o nZnu
and tracing first the affinal link to w, thence can be described exactly as flowing from this
the consanguineal links to her m (same as dependence on his mother and her depen-
ego’s), her brother, his son, his daughter, and dence in turn on her father and village as
her son, we again arrive a t dote. “insurance” and support in her husband’s
The process of reasoning t o generate the home.
genealogical domains of terms o r groups of Implications similarly can be drawn o u t
terms is similar. For example, nuni obvi- of the basic definitions and institutional
ously contains m F and mFFsdH. In concepts for any other term. The concept of
addition, by its definition, it must also ma is obviously closely tied in with that of
contain mFB, mFwB, mFsB, mFBwB, nani, while the term dudi, as noted,
mFsBwB, and indeed an infinite series designates the residual class of those who are
consisting of all possible pathways t o the not n i n i on t h e + 2 generation. Their
nana position-all possible ways t o be properties are more complex and various.
mapped as a +2 generation matrilateral male. When selected terms are used, they suggest
Classification of persons o r generation of these other implications. Used in conjunc-
domains does not, however, always depend tion with related terms that are defined in
upon genealogical linkages. People without the institutional rules, the exact sense
known genealogical links t o ego can intended can be differentiated from the
nevertheless be categorized, and domains general implications in each case. “Real”
apart from genealogical domains can be d i d i s who share “property” with ego can be
generated. For example, a male of one’s own differentiated from those “only called”
village who is older than ego’s father but dadus who d o not, and so forth.
younger than ego’s father’s father would be Although it is significant, with respect t o
taiii and his wife would be tui; a man of his Kroeber’s position, that terms can be used in
same age in one’s mother’s village would be an institutional sense even for those with
mama, his wife m a m i a n d his father nina. whom n o genealogical relationship exists o r
To generate an extra-genealogical domain, is implied, there is a more fundamental and
one can select any position and ask what critical point. The organization of t h e termi-
general characteristics will be exhibited by nology as a whole shows that not even the
554 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 7 3 , 1971

simplest genealogical connections, such as be said is that terminologies, as semantic

mF, can be mapped into terminological posi- systems, permit their users to put genealog-
tions without assuming as premises the insti- ical interrelationships between individuals in-
tutional rules that keep the semantic do- to a larger institutional framework of con-
mains discrete and clear. In this most im- CeptS.
portant sense, the terms are inseparable from
the “institutional” concepts or patterns of NOTE
the society: from the rules of marriage that
separate matrilateral from patrilateral kin, The field investigation was supported by
from the distinction between genealogically a Public Health Service fellowship and grant
remote ancestors and “relations” who are MH08194 from t h e National Institute of
Mental Health.
either affines o r consanguines, and from t h e
rules for address and associated rules of re-
spect based upon generational relative “age.” REFERENCES CITED
This is what makes it necessary to rearrange
Buchler, Ira R., and Henry A. Selby
Kroeber’s formula. 1968 Kinship Social Organization. New
Kroeber saw terminologies as systems of York: Macmillan.
concepts that somehow were linguistic, and Goodenough, Ward H.
yet existed “in a rigid biological framework” 1956 Componential Analysis and the
essentially divorced from t h e institutions of Study of Meaning. Language
32:195-216.
the society. On the basis of this analysis, I Kroeber, A.L.
would have to say instead that what the 1952 The Nature of Culture. Chicago:
concepts are embedded in is a mnemonic University of Chicago Press.
framework. In this case, as in many others, Leach, E. R.
1961 Rethinking Anthropology. LSE
the mnemonics is phonological, but it is Monographs o n Social Anthropology
conceivable that other mechanisms, such as 22. London: The Athlone Press.
rituals, might also be used. The general Murdock, G.P.
concepts of the terminology themselves are 1949 Social Structure. New York:
identical to those in institutions-they are Macmillan.
Rivers, W. H. R.
embedded in explicitly formulated institu- 1968 Kinship and Social Organization.
tional rules and rituals just as they are in t h e Oxford: Athlone Press.
phonology. Biology, as represented by Romney, A. K., and Roy G. D’Andrade
Kroeber’s eight categories o r by the 1964 Cognitive Aspects of American
analogous insistence o n kin-types as a basis Kinship Terms. American Anthropolo-
gist 66(5, p t 2):146-170.
of analysis in componential analysis is
Schneider, D. M.
essentially extrinsic to the terminology in a 1965 Kinship and Biology. I n Aspects of
very specific sense. Although t h e terminol- Analysis of Family Structure. Coale,
ogy can encompass genealogical relations Fallers, Levy, Schneider, and Tomkins,
between people of a society who are eds. Princeton University Press.
1968 American Kinship: A Cultural
reckoned as direct kin, its constituent Account. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
positions are essentially more general, Hall.
broader semantic conceptions. A kinship Wallace, A., and John Atkins
term, as Schneider said, “is not only a term 1960 The Meaning of Kinship Terms.
for kinsman” (Rivers 1968:13).While it can American Anthropologist 62:58-80.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
not be said that biology frames o r limits t h e 1953 Philosophical Investigations. New
meaning of terms o r terminologies, what can York: Macmillan.