Kinship Semantics in Linguistics and Anthropology

Abstract

In a recent article Jeffrey S. Gruber (See (not equal to) Hoa Kinship Terms' Linguistic Inquiry 1973, 4, 427-450.) formulates an account of (not equal to) Hoa kinship terms & their associated meanings within the framework of generative linguistics. Although he refers in a footnote to the componential analyses of anthropologists, Gruber makes no use of either because the former are done 'without a generative framework' & the latter 'do not recognize a base generation.' With regard to both points, it must be said that Gruber is correct. It does not follow, however, that the analyses of anthropologists are of no relevance to generative linguists. 2 points can be made about the relation between Gruber's generative framework & the nongenerative analyses of anthropologists. A convenient way to do this is to construct a Gruber-like account of the consanguineal kin terms of American English & then compare this to the componential & equivalance rule analyses that are available for the American terminology. This is a convenient strategy, not only because it simplifies the present discussion, but also because the American terminology has been studied more extensively by anthropologists than any other. HA