Universal #1661

Legacy number: 1661

 Number  1656
 Original  Lineal kinship term is unmarked as against collateral, consanguineal is unmarked as against affinal, the less remote from the speaker (measured in the number of generations) is unmarked as against the more remote, older is unmarked in relation to younger. (See Graphics)
 Standardized  Lineal kinship term is unmarked as against collateral, consanguineal is unmarked as against affinal, the less remote from the speaker (measured in the number of generations) is unmarked as against the more remote, older is unmarked in relation to younger. (See Graphics)
 Keywords  kinship, markedness
 Domain  lexicon
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute
 Basis  Gifford study of California kinship terminologies which contains kinship terminologies of approx. 80 California Indian groups, and approx. 40 additional terminologies from various parts of the world
 Source  Greenberg 1966c, Greenberg 1980: 20

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
1. Two basic factors are at work, seniority and genealogical remoteness from ego. That means, the closer a generation is to ego, the more unmarked it is. Likewise, each ascending generation is unmarked in relation to the corresponding descending generation. Greenberg (1980: 20) 2. Greenberg’s criteria of markedness:A. zero expression vs. overt expression for certain categories (cf. the consanguineal vs. the affinal relation in such pairs as ‘brother’ vs. ‘brother in law’);B. neutralization of sertain distinctions in some categories (cf. neutralization of sex reference in ‘cousin’ as against ‘brother’ and ‘sister’);C. defectivation, i.e. the absence of a term in the marked category which would correspond to an existiing one in the unmarked category – cf. *‘cousin-in-law’; D. greater text frequency for unmarked categories.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Two basic factors are at work, seniority and genealogical remoteness from ego. That means, the closer a generation is to ego, the more unmarked it is. Likewise, each ascending generation is unmarked in relation to the corresponding descending generation. (Greenberg 1980: 20)

2. Greenberg's criteria of markedness:
A. zero expression vs. overt expression for certain categories (cf. the consanguineal vs. the affinal relation in such pairs as 'brother' vs. 'brother in law');
B. neutralization of sertain distinctions in some categories (cf. neutralization of sex reference in 'cousin' as against 'brother' and 'sister');
C. defectivation, i.e. the absence of a term in the marked category which would correspond to an existiing one in the unmarked category – cf. *'cousin-in-law';
D. greater text frequency for unmarked categories.