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
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.
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.