Componential Analysis of Kinship Terminology: A Computational Perspective

191 Pages·2013·0.552 MB·English

by  Vladimir Pericliev (auth.)

The Palgrave Macmillan
Componential Analysis of
Kinship Terminology
A Computational Perspective
Vladimir Pericliev
Componential Analysis of Kinship Terminology
AlsobyVladimirPericliev
MACHINE-AIDEDLINGUISTICDISCOVERY:AnIntroductionandSome
Examples
PROFILINGLANGUAGEFAMILIESBYTHEIRKINTERMPATTERNS:
AComputationalApproach
Componential Analysis of
Kinship Terminology
A Computational Perspective
Vladimir Pericliev
BulgarianAcademyofSciences,Sofia
©VladimirPericliev2013
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2013 978-1-137-03117-4
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedhisrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork
inaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2013by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN 978-1-349-44076-4 ISBN 978-1-137-03118-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137031181
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
Contents
ListoftablesintheAppendix vi
Preface ix
Acknowledgments xii
1 Introduction:thehistoricalbackground 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Componentialanalysisofkinshipterminological
systems:thebasicnotions 4
1.3 Goalsofcomponentialanalysis:‘psychological
validity’vs.‘social-structuralreality’ 12
1.4 Componentialanalysisandalternativeapproaches 15
1.5 Summary 20
2 Problemsofcomponentialanalysis 22
2.1 Violationofconsistency:examplesfromtheliterature 23
2.2 Multiplesolutions 39
2.3 Summary 54
3 TheKINSHIPsystem 56
3.1 AnoverviewofKINSHIP 56
3.2 Thebasicalgorithm 59
3.3 Bulgarianre-analysedwithKINSHIP’s
simplicityconstraints 70
4 Componentialanalysesofselectedlanguages 80
4.1 Introduction 80
4.2 Exercisesinmachinecomponentialanalysis 81
4.3 Summaryofresults 113
5 Conclusion 119
Appendix:Tables 123
Bibliography 172
Index 176
v
List of tables in the Appendix
1.1 ComponentialanalysisofEnglishconsanguineals 123
1.2 RelationalanalysisofEnglish(afterWallace1970) 123
2.1 Nogle’scomponentialmodelofEnglish 124
2.2 Contrastsdemarcatinguncle 124
2.3 RedundancyinNogle’scomponentialmodelofEnglish
(redundantcomponentsenclosedinbrackets) 125
2.4 Burling’scomponentialmodelofBurmeseandits
redundancy(redundantcomponentsenclosedin
brackets) 126
2.5 Cherryetal.’scomponentialmodelofRussianphonemes
anditsredundancy(redundantcomponentsenclosedin
brackets) 127
2.6 Spencer’sredundantmodelofthesystemoffivevowels/i,
e,a,o,u/(redundantcomponentsenclosedinbrackets) 128
2.7 ComponentialschemeofBulgarianreferencetermswith
dimensionset{sex,sex1stlink,affinity1stlink,
generation,distance,affinity} 128
2.8 ComponentialschemeofBulgarianaddresstermswith
dimensionset{sex,generation,generationlastlink,sex
1stlink,affinity1stlink,distance} 132
2.9 Norick’sredundantmodelofNiutaokinshipterms
(redundantcomponentsenclosedinparenthesesand
emptycellsinanglebrackets) 134
3.1 AsubsetofBulgarianconsanguinealkinshipterms 135
3.2 KintypesofcertainAmericankinterms 135
3.3 Determiningfeaturevaluesofkintypes 135
3.4 Determiningkintermcomponents 136
3.5 Contrastingfeaturesbetweenpairsofkinterms 136
3.6 Contrastswithˇciˇco 137
3.7 Simplestcomponentialmodel 137
3.8 Anothersimplestcomponentialmodel 137
3.9 Afullyredundantcomponentialmodel 137
3.10 Stylesofkintermdefinitions 138
3.11 ComponentialschemeofBulgariankintermsofreference
andaddress 138
vi
ListoftablesintheAppendix vii
3.12 TheuniquecomponentialmodelofBulgariankinterms
ofreferenceandaddress 147
4.1 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofAmericanEnglish 149
4.2 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofSwedish(alternative1) 150
4.3 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofSwedish(alternative2) 151
4.4 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofIrish 152
4.5 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofSpanish 152
4.6 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPolish(alternative1) 153
4.7 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPolish(alternative2) 154
4.8 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofCzech 155
4.9 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPersian 155
4.10 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofAlbanian
(alternative1) 156
4.11 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofAlbanian
(alternative2) 156
4.12 ComponentialanalysisofAlbanian(alternative3) 157
4.13 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofArmenian 157
4.14 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofTurkish(alternative1) 159
4.15 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofTurkish(alternative2) 160
4.16 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofTurkish(alternative3) 161
4.17 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofTurkish(alternative4) 163
4.18 ComponentialanalysisofSeneca 164
4.19 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofZapotec 165
4.20 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative1) 165
4.21 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative2) 165
4.22 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative3) 166
4.23 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative4) 166
4.24 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative5) 166
4.25 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofPopoloca
(alternative6) 167
4.26 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative1) 167
4.27 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative2) 167
4.28 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative3) 168
4.29 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative4) 168
4.30 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative5) 168
4.31 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative6) 169
viii ListoftablesintheAppendix
4.32 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative7) 169
4.33 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative8) 169
4.34 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative9) 170
4.35 SimplestcomponentialanalysisofHuave(alternative10) 170
4.36 Analysedlanguagesandnumberoftheiralternative
dimensionsetsandcomponentialmodels 171
Preface
The notion of ‘system’ is central in all post-Saussurean linguistics, and
componential analysis is the method for exposing the systems of lin-
guistic entities. In componential analysis, the meaning (or value) of
the entities forming a system is described as a conjunction of smaller
components that are necessary and jointly sufficient to distinguish
each entity in the system from all others. Componential analysis orig-
inated in phonology, but the approach was naturally extended also
to the other levels of linguistic analysis: grammar and semantics.
Componential analysis of kinship terminology, which lies at the cross-
roads of linguistics and anthropology, is the prototype example from
semantics.
The early influential work on kinship semantics by Lounsbury,
Goodenough and others laid the foundations of the field and was fol-
lowed by numerous attempts to reveal the semantic structure of kin
termsinvarious‘exotic’languages,hopingtounderstandthemeaning
and use of the terms, and more optimistically, to highlight the cate-
gorization and world view of native speakers. The topic flourished for
several decades, but as happens all too often in science, after this peak
the method became somewhat less visible in published work. Never-
theless the approach was not abandoned altogether: in linguistics, it
continued to be quite regularly used in semantic analyses of various
theoretical persuasions, and in anthropology, ‘formal analysis’ (as the
componential method is usually referred to in anthropology) contin-
uedtobeanindispensablepartofkintermstudies.Thispersistencein
methodologyisunderstandableinsofarasrejectingthemethodbasically
implies rejecting the fundamental idea of system in linguistics. Addi-
tionally,thesemantic structurearrivedatby componentialanalysis, as
is well known, is important for constructing dictionary definitions, for
translationpurposes,andforhistoricalreconstruction.
A major goal of the present book is to critically review previ-
ous conceptions of the method and improve on previous practice of
componential analysis of kin terms by setting the problem in a com-
putational perspective. Two basic problems are isolated in previous
work: the consistency of componential models, and their indetermi-
nacy. Regarding the first problem, I will try to show, with examples
ix