LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SANDAROS TYRINĖJIMAI

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVI (1987)

RŪTA ŽUKAITĖ-BUVYDIENĖ

KINSHIP TERMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEXICOGRAPHIC PRACTICE

Kinship terms are interesting not only because of their antiquity and complex development, but also because in many languages they form one of the most closed, harmoniously organized, and stable lexical-semantic systems. It is no coincidence that they are so often chosen as test cases for structural methods of meaning analysis. This characteristic of these words is also important in lexicographic practice: the exceptional systematicity and closedness of the thematic group of kinship terms provide an excellent basis for describing the meaning of its members precisely and consistently in explanatory dictionaries. Unfortunately, a closer look at the treatment of kinship terms reveals that explanatory dictionaries of various languages¹ contain similar shortcomings: inadequate, illogical definitions occur; consistency and uniformity are lacking in describing the meanings of functionally equivalent words; and the meanings of some polysemous kinship terms are insufficiently differentiated. The recurrence of the same defects in dictionaries of different languages suggests that they are probably not entirely accidental. These shortcomings can be explained by objective difficulties connected with the specific nature of the material being presented. After all, the kinship terms of every language have specific semantic features that distinguish them from other words in that language. Some of these features are universal, that is, common to the kinship terms of many Indo-European languages; others are shared only by a few related languages or are even entirely unique. Understandably, bringing all these features to light requires specialized theoretical research. Inaccuracies in defining the meanings of kinship terms, some of which also occur in our dictionaries, should first and foremost be attributed to the lack of comprehensive research on Lithuanian kinship vocabulary².

This short article does not claim to offer a comprehensive semantic analysis of Lithuanian kinship terms. Its sole aim is to draw attention to some of the most general semantic features of these words that are important for lexicographic practice.

The main semantic feature of kinship terms (hereafter KT), common to all Indo-European languages, is the relational nature of their meaning. KTs describe

¹ For problems in presenting kinship terms in Russian-language dictionaries, see Мойсеев А. И. Типы толкования терминов родства в словарях современного русского языка. — Лексикографический сборник, 1962, вып. V, с. 121—124.

² To date, we have no comprehensive study of Lithuanian kinship terms. For the time being, it is represented by a short, descriptive, prescriptive article by A. Salys (Salys A. Mūsų gentivardžiai. — Gimtoji kalba, 1937) and a section of A. Sabaliauskas’s study “The Development of Lithuanian Vocabulary,” which surveys the origins of the oldest kinship terms in our language — Sabaliauskas A. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida. — (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai). V., 1966, t. 8, p. 12—15.

189

a person through their relationship to another person or persons. A person designated by a particular KT is not such in isolation, but only in relation to someone else. One cannot be a niece or a parent-in-law in the abstract; one can only be someone’s niece or parent-in-law. Thus, the meaning of every KT encompasses at least two poles: the person with respect to whom the kinship is reckoned, and the other, “sought” person. In keeping with an old tradition supported by representatives of American anthropological linguistics, the former may be called ego, and the latter alter³. The relationship inherent in the meaning of a KT can be explicated by naming both ego and alter, for example: the neighbor’s son, my brother, Ona’s husband… or I am your brother-in-law, he is my uncle… If the point of reference for kinship (ego) is not mentioned in a particular speech act, it is generally understood from the broader context⁴. Definitions of KTs in dictionaries must likewise reflect, in one way or another, the relational nature of their meaning. Definitions such as the following are wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable: žmona: 1. a married woman, herself: Paėmė protingą ~a (DLKŽ). The addition of pati (“herself”) does not help here, since this word is defined in the same dictionary only as “wife.” First, this definition does not even indirectly indicate that the word žmona has a relational meaning, or that it forms an unnamed pair with the kinship term vyras. A žmona defined in this way can be associated, at most, with mergina—“a young unmarried woman” (DLKŽ)—and senmergė—“an old unmarried woman” (DLKŽ). Thus, such an interpretation of the meaning allows žmona to be assigned to the paradigm of terms for women by age and marital status⁵, but not to the kinship terms (here we see how a dictionary definition can impose one aspect of a word’s paradigmatic relations while ignoring others). Second, if we were to believe the dictionary, it would follow that anyone could call or even address any married woman as žmona and pati—for example, a woman could use these words for her married friends or even her own mother!

The definition of the meaning of vyras in the same dictionary is much better: “in married life, a woman’s spouse, himself.”

The meaning of a KT can be defined in a dictionary in two ways: I. By naming both ego and alter, that is, by explicitly showing the relational nature of the KT’s meaning in the definition; II. By naming only alter.

³ Cf. Goodenough W. H. Componential analysis of k75nk01m01 Lapp kinship terminology. – In.: Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock/Ed. by W. H. Goodenough. New York, 1964, p. 222.

⁴ Knowing this feature of the meaning of KTs makes it clear why even a text such as the following sounds unnatural: “It was getting dark. An elderly pusseserė, carrying a basket of porcini mushrooms, was walking along the road.” Here the essential relational nature of the KT’s meaning is disregarded—it is simply “left no room.” The objective tone of the narration, the viewpoint “as if from the outside,” and the impression of a first encounter with the “character” do not allow us to assume that the point of reference for kinship (ego) is known from the context.

⁵It is well known that at one time žmona was a word with an absolute meaning—it meant simply “woman.” In some dialects this is still said today: Once there was a poor woman. A woman was walking with three men. This meaning of the word žmona is listed separately in DLKŽ as secondary. Some other KTs—motina, tėvas, senelis, senelė and their synonyms—may also have an absolute meaning. For example: To be a mother—what joy! Congratulations—I’m a grandmother now. In these contexts, the words cited do not function as kinship terms. Motina here simply means a woman who has children, without specifying her relationship with those children. For more on the absolute meaning of KTs, see Моисеев А. И. Термины родства в современном русском языке. – Филологические науки, 1963, №3, с. 123.

190

The first, “explicit,” method of defining meaning can be implemented in several ways. Cf.: 1) žmona – a woman in relation to a male person to whom she is connected by marriage; vyras – a male person in relation to a woman to whom he is connected by marriage⁶. In this case, defining the meanings of the words requires no other kinship terms; the meaning is explained using words from other, “independent” groups of terms. Both poles of the kinship relation are explicitly stated here and viewed “from the outside,” objectively. This method of defining meaning is most suitable for terms denoting spouses or people who are marrying; it is difficult to define other kinship terms in this way. 2) anyta – a woman in relation to her son’s wife; dėdė – a man in relation to his brother’s or sister’s children, senelė – a woman in relation to her children’s children; sūnus – a male person in relation to his parents; tėvas – a man in relation to his children (DLKŽ). Definitions of this type rely partly on kinship terms and partly on other words. In our dictionaries, this “mixed” method is generally used only to define tėvas (DLKŽ) and motina (cf. motina – a woman in relation to her children, LKŽ). As the examples show, this method can be applied much more broadly. It is unsuitable only for defining terms denoting spouses or people who are marrying (a “circle” would result: vyras – a male person in relation to his wife; žmona – a woman in relation to her husband).

The most common way of defining kinship-term meaning in Lithuanian dictionaries is to name only one pole of the kinship relation in question—alter. It is expressed through a combination of other kinship terms, for example: anūkas – a child’s child, grandchild (DLKŽ); avynas – mother’s brother, uncle (DLKŽ); dukterėčia – brother’s or sister’s daughter (DLKŽ); senelė – mother’s or father’s mother (DLKŽ); svainis – 1. wife’s or husband’s brother. 2. sister’s husband. 3. wife’s or husband’s sister’s husband (DLKŽ). As we can see, ego (the point of reference, the person relative to whom kinship is reckoned) is left implicit, unstated. But this does not mean that the relational nature of the kinship term’s meaning is disregarded. In defining a kinship term in this way, one simply adopts the position of ego—one “identifies” with the person from whose perspective the kinship relation is assessed. This “implicit” method of explaining meaning is also possible, although it does not explicitly show the relational nature of the meaning. It has a long tradition and is convenient because of its brevity. Only the meanings of tėvo, motinos and terms denoting spouses cannot be explained this way.

All the principal methods of defining kinship-term meaning listed above are possible; each has its own sphere of use, with various advantages and disadvantages. What matters is not which of the possible methods of explaining meaning is followed, but how consistently one or another method is applied. It is very important to maintain consistency in the method of definition when explaining the meaning of a particular kinship term. The following kind of definition should be considered illogical: marti – a son’s wife in relation to his father or mother (DLKŽ). It would suffice to write “son’s wife”; everything else is surplus. After all, when one says “son’s wife,” one is already looking from the parents’ perspective—that is the normal “implicit” way of explaining the meaning of a kinship term, from the position of ego. Shifting from the subjective position of ego to the neutral position of an observer, as is done here by saying “in relation to his father or mother,” is illogical. This is the same as saying “our son’s wife in relation to his father or mo-

⁶ Cf. A. I. Moiseev, “Types of Definitions of Kinship Terms in Dictionaries of Modern Russian.” — Lexicographic Collection, 1962, issue V, p. 123.

191

ther.” To define the word’s meaning objectively, “explicitly,” one should write marti – “a woman in relation to her husband’s father or mother.”

The implicit (subjective) method of definition is “spoiled” (and thus a logical error is made) in the explanations of the meanings of the words patėvis and pamotė as well: patėvis – “another husband of the mother, a stepfather to her children from an earlier marriage” (DLKŽ); pamotė – “a stepmother, the father’s wife to children from his earlier marriages” (DLKŽ). Here, implicit definitions of meaning extending back to the beginnings of the lexicon were intended to be clarified; but in clarifying them, the implicit, subjective method of explaining meaning was conflated with the explicit, objective one. If clarification is desired, it should be written this way: pamotė – “the father’s other wife, a stepmother.” If desired, one can give a neutral definition using the explicit “mixed” method: pamotė – “a woman in relation to her husband’s children from his earlier marriages”; patėvis – “a man in relation to his wife’s children from her earlier marriages.”

The definitions of the kinship terms podukra and posūnis, which belong to the same lexical “microsystem” as pamotė and patėvis, are impeccable in the same dictionary; cf. pódúkra – a stepdaughter; a wife’s or husband’s daughter from an earlier marriage (DLKŽ); posūnis – “a stepson; a wife’s or husband’s son from an earlier marriage” (DLKŽ). In both cases, the same implicit method of explaining meaning has been maintained.

Kinship vocabulary is an organized system in which every word has its own place, determined by its relations to other words. Every kinship term enters into several types of oppositions; the meaning of the term itself depends on its capacity to be a member of those oppositions. Among the most obvious is the distribution of kinship terms denoting the same degree of kinship into binary oppositions according to the semantic feature of sex inherent in the meanings of those words: e.g., brolis – sesuo, dėdė – teta, sūnus – duktė, tėvas – motina, dieveris – moša, šešuras – anyta, žentas – marti… As the examples show, most of these oppositions are characterized by heteronymy, or lexical suppletion. Only a few kinship terms are exceptions: anūkas – anūkė, senelis – senelė, svainis – svainė, uošvis – uošvė.

The relational nature of kinship-term meaning determines their capacity to form other types of oppositions as well, which we might provisionally call converse oppositions. These are oppositions between words, one of which denotes the speaker (ego), the other the person “sought” (alter). For example, if the speaker calls another person vyru (husband), then that person must call the speaker žmona (wife); if the speaker calls someone anyta (mother-in-law), then in relation to that person the speaker is marti (daughter-in-law); if someone is another person’s tėvas (father), it follows that he must have a son or daughter. Words denoting ego and alter are dialectically related and form an inseparable “unity of opposites”: there is no husband without a wife, no son-in-law without a father-in-law, and so on. Heteronymy is also characteristic of this type of opposition in our language, e.g.: vyras – žmona, brolis – sesuo (in both cases, opposition by sex coincides with converse opposition!), motina – sūnus, motina – duktė, anyta – marti, marti – šešuras, and others. Only a few kinship terms are exceptions: brolis – brolis, sesuo – sesuo, pusbrolis – pusbrolis, svainis – svainis… (Usually these are terms for relatives of the same generation. Relatives of these types call one another by the same term.)

In dictionaries, the definitions of the meanings of members of both the first and the second type of opposition should be made consistent. This is necessary not only for the sake of coherence, but also so that it may be reflected

192

a real associative relationship in the minds of language users between words denoting kinship at the same degree and used to name persons of different sexes, and between words with which members of a pair of relatives address one another. The aforementioned inadequate definitions of the words wife and daughter-in-law are faulty not only in themselves, but also because they are inconsistent with the definitions of the oppositional words husband and son-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law (see DLKŽ).

The narrow scope of this article does not allow us to cover all the features of the Lithuanian kinship-term system. One could discuss kinship-term oppositions based on generation, the division of kinship terms into blood and marital kinship subsystems, the opposition between actual and “fictive” blood kinship and the latter’s naming microsystem (stepmother, stepfather, stepson, adopted son, adoptive father…); the microsystem of “collateral” kinship terms (uncle, aunt, nephew, niece…), and so on. Clearly, the meaning of the members of any one “subsystem” should be explained in the dictionary according to the same principle, with the aim of maintaining a consistent mode of defining meanings.

KINSHIP TERMS IN THE ASPECT OF LEXICOGRAPHIC PRACTICE

Abstract

The article addresses the interpretation of kinship terms (KT) in Lithuanian dictionaries. It offers critical remarks on the definitions of some KTs. Two main approaches to defining KTs are identified—explicit and implicit. The principal semantic features of Lithuanian KTs are noted: relationality of meaning, the ability to enter binary oppositions based on the semantic feature of sex, and converse oppositions such as father – son, mother-in-law – daughter-in-law. It is emphasized that the systematic nature of the lexicographic material itself requires that it be represented in the dictionary systematically and in a coordinated manner.