User talk:KinjiNyoba16

'''Kirundi Kinship Terminology  == Definition'''

According to G.P Murdock (1960:97)), kinship terms are “verbal elements that express the reciprocal behaviour characterizing every relationship between kinsmen.” This definition highlights the significance of kinship terms in day-to-day communication in all languages and societies of the world. Kinship terms are very important because members of the kin group use them at least sometimes to address a relative or refer to him. Before Murdock, Morgan Lewis cited in Fried, M H (1980: 335) had clarified this significance of kinship terminology in the structure and organisation of family. He defines kinship terminology as “systems of consanguinity and affinity” that deal with “a people’s recognition of their genealogical relationships and therefore describe to us the actual organization of the kinship order”. Later, Radcliffe and Ayisi brought in new concepts, namely norm, duty, and right. Ayisi (1980:37) defines kinship terms as “definite terms” that express “the relationships which exist between individuals, thus conceptualizing the norms and the code of behaviour or the type of interactions, either open-ended or restricted that should operate between these various categories of individuals who are thus connected”. Ayisi shows, here, that kinship terms are more social than linguistic items, for they denote all the social phenomena of society. At this point, Radcliffe (1970) consents that “kinship terms are like signposts to interpersonal conduct or etiquette, with implication of appropriate reciprocal rights, duties, privileges and obligations.” With regard to the Kirundi kinship terminology, studies have been carried out by a lot of authors coming out with either anthropological or linguistic conclusions.

'''Criticism on the Existing Related Literature

''' This section provides information about works done by Burundians and other researchers on the Kirundi kinship terminology and the significance of this vocabulary in the Burundi society.

Many writers, among others George Peter Murdock (1960), Radcliffe Brown (1969), Daryll Forde (1969), Hélène Claudot (1982), M. Angulu Onwuejeogwu (1981), Eric D. Ayisi (1979), and Steven A.. Tyler (1972) have written on kinship terminologies in order to bring out light on their quiddity, classification, social and cultural determinants or reflection of cultural values of society. Besides, a number of studies have been carried out by Burundians and foreigners on the topic of the Kirundi kinship terminology. These include: T. Havyarimana (1989), J.B Nterere (1969), D. Ngowenubusa (1970), Alii (1970), P. Ngarambe (1979), Vinke (1979), J.B Bigangara (1986). Apart from Havyarimana who did a lexicological study, others focused on the anthropological point of view of the Kirundi kinship terminology. Almost all works done on the Kirundi kinship terminology lead to nearly the same conclusion: Kirundi kinship words reveal the familial and social organisation and convey cultural values of Burundi.

In their research conducted in the regions of Mirwa, Moso, Mugamba, Buyenzi, Kirimiro and Imbo; Ngowenubusa, Barampama and Ntakirutimana conclude: “A partir de l’analyse de la structure terminologique, on comprend mieux la structure des relations sociales”. Translated: “From the analysis of the structure of the terminology, we understand better the structure of social relationships”. In the same article (QVS, Vol4, No. 12, 1970), the authors start with the organisation of the nuclear family in order to capture the whole organisation of the extended family, in particular and that of the Burundi society in general. The introduction puts : “Cette synthèse nous permettra de comprendre la place que tienne le père, la mère et leurs enfants au sein du foyer et le rôle spécial que chacun d’eux est appelé à jouer dans la société”. Translated: “This summary will enable us to understand the place of the father, the mother and their children in the bosom of the household and the special role that each of them has to play in the society”.

Complementing their idea, Nterere (QVS, Vol2, No.6, 1969), in his article “La signification de la famille parentale au Burundi” (The meaning of the consanguineal family in Burundi) establishes a relationship between Kirundi kinship terminology and the roles played by members of the consanguineal family. Unlike the previous authors, he does not focus on the affinal family. He vehemently shows how names given to members of the consanguineal family convey the significance of the latter in the organisation of the society.

In the same spirit, another analysis was done by P. Ngarambe (1979:360-363) in his article titled: “Pragmatique de la terminologie de la parenté Rundi” (The Pragmatics of the Kirundi Kinship Terminology). Here, Ngarambe highlights the congruity that exists between Kirundi kinship words and culturally patterned behaviour. In his findings, he demonstrates the pragmatics of the terms of address. In actual communication, address terms go with patterns of behaviour and social attitudes displayed by both the addresser and the addressee. In this way, he shows that Kirundi kinship terms of address do not simply say; rather they do. He applies this phenomenon to the social organisation and comes up with two notions which are fundamental to the Burundi social organisation: Seniority and authority of the male. In his view, Burundi society is centred around the power of the senior over the junior and the authority of the male over the female. He clarifies: “Le Burundi a une structure fortement hiérarchisée où les abagabo viennent chaque fois en première place dans les secteurs-clefs de la société”. Translated: “Burundi has a highly hierarchical structure where men always occupy the first place in key sectors of the society”.

A further analysis of Kirundi kinship terminology was done by T. Havyarimana (1989). For the first time, he did a linguistic study on Kirundi kinship terminology. His work is different from the aforementioned in the way that it seeks to provide readers with a dictionary of Kirundi kinship words. Hence, conclusion related to the scientific study of the Kirundi language rather than cultural or social anthropological outlook. More clearly, from the etymology of Kirundi kinship terms, that is, Kinyarwanda, Kiha and Kifurero (languages spoken in neighbouring countries, respectively Rwanda, Tanzania and Democratic Republic of Congo), he makes a linguistic analysis and interpretation of the forms of kinship words collected from the speakers of those languages. He, therefore, gives lexical meanings of the words used in the Kirundi kinship system.

Finally, in his study on the relationship between semantics and anthropology aiming at capturing the concept of family and marriage in the Burundi traditional society, J.B Bigangara (1986:154) assumes that each kinship term conveys social duties and rights of the person(relative ) to whom it refers. He illustrates this with the meaning of husband (umugabo) as it is vehicled through Kirundi dictions:

Urugó ruramutswa umugabo The husband is the label of the home. Ururímwo umugabo ntirugirá umugayo A household headed by a man is not disdained Inkokókazi ntíbika isǎke irího The wife does not speak when her husband is around. These expressions and many others highlight the power of the husband in the household in particular and that of the man in the society, in general. By demonstrating that man or husband means authority, Bigangara agrees with Ngarambe’s conclusion.

'''Description of Kirundi Kinship Terminology

''' The classification of kinship terms has been a bone of contention among scholars of the cultural and social anthropology canon. This is because even though kinship terms conform to the morphological principles of a given language, their classification is not necessarily shaped upon the nature of language. Kinship terms, rather, embrace both linguistic and social features of the speech community. On this point, Murdock (1960:118) admits that “language represents reality and in so far as it is related to social phenomena, it is likely to mirror them”. Nevertheless, social and cultural anthropology agree that kinship terms can be classified in terms of their use, their linguistic structure and their range of application.

'''Mode of Use of Kirundi Kinship Terminology

Social and cultural anthropologists and linguistic anthropologists as well advance that depending on their mode of use, kinship terms can be classified into two categories: terms of address and terms of reference. The terms of address are words used in face-to-face communication between relatives. This is why they are accompanied directly by patterns of behaviour. They are in fact part of the linguistic behaviour denoted by a particular interpersonal relationship. Murdock (1960:106) advances that “The terms of address form an integral part of the culturally patterned relationships between kinsmen, even though they are an aspect of habitual verbal rather than gross muscular behaviour”. In Kirundi, for example, we have terms, such as mugo(wife), bamwa (my child- in-law’s parents), ma (mum), da (dad) and mwana (child).

On the other hand, reference terms are a sort of labels used by ego to designate a relative in speaking about him or her to another person (third). It serves to denote a relative and his particular kinship status or rank. Contrary to the terms of address, reference terms do not explicitly go with culturally patterned behaviour during communication. This is true, for example, in Kirundi with terms, such as inásēnge (his/her patrilineal aunt), séwǎbo (his/her patrilineal uncle), nyokórome (your matrilineal uncle), dātabukwé (my father-in-law), mārúme(my matrilineal uncle), bêndahámwe (my sister-in-law’s husband), mukâdāwé (my stepmother), só (your father), nyoko (your mother), etc.

Findings on kinship terms reveal that some words are used both for address and reference. Some others, however, exclusively act as address terms while others are specific for reference. Moreover, address terms are almost diminutive, informal or colloquial terms which derive from the reference terms. Sometimes, they are specific terms which have nothing to do with their equivalent reference terms. Thus sogo(grandpa), nyogo (grandma), mwana (child), mukaza (daughter-in-law), da (dad), ma (mum), bamwa (my child’s in-law parents) are derivatives respectively from sogókuru (my grandfather), nyogókuru (my grandmother), umwâna (child), umukazâna (daughter-in-law), dāwé (my father), māwé (my mother), bāmwâna (my child’s in-law parents) which are their equivalent reference terms.

'''Linguistic Structure of Kirundi Kinship Terminology

Most studies on kinship terms classify them under three categories, namely elementary or simple terms, derivative terms, and descriptive terms.

First of all, elementary terms are irreducible terms or words which cannot be analysed into further component lexical elements with kinship meanings. They are like free morphemes from which other compound terms are formed. In Kirundi, there are elementary and simple terms, such as māmá (my mother), dātá (my father), musâza (brother: woman speaking), muvyâra (cross cousin). They serve as raw material for other complex terms, such as māmáwǎcu (my matrilineal aunt), dātabukwé (my father-in-law), mushíkǎbo (his parallel cousin), musâzānje (my brother: woman speaking) and muvyârāwe (your cross cousin). As far as derivative terms are concerned, they are terms compounded from elementary terms and some other lexical elements which do not primarily have kinship meaning. They are a sort of compound words or phrases whose full meaning reflects kinship ties between two persons. For example, umwŭzukuru (grandchild), dātabukwé (my father-in-law), murúmunānje (my younger brother), mugēnziwé (his cospouse) are derivatives. The morphemes with which they are associated, that is, -kúru, -wé, -bukwé, -ānje have basically nothing to do with familial bonds.

Finally, descriptive terms are words or phrases which combine two or more elementary terms to denote a specific relative. It is, here, worth mentioning that descriptive terms are intermediate between elementary terms and derivative terms. Umukazâna (daughter-in-law) and mukâdāwe (my stepmother) have transparent meanings because they describe the relationship between ego and alter.

'''Mode of Application of Kirundi Kinship Terminology 

Anthropologists consent that kinship nomenclature items can be grouped into two classification systems: denotative system and classificatory system.

Denotative systems of kinship are systems which use one term only to denote relatives in one kinship category depending on sex, generation, genealogy differentiation, etc. The label mwĕnewâcu (my brother), for instance, can be applied to both the younger brothers and elder brothers of ego. On the other hand, classificatory systems are kinship systems which use one term to refer to or address relatives of two or more kinship categories as these are defined by generation, sex or genealogical connection. In Kirundi, a term such as sogókuru (my grandfather) can be used to label all the males of the second ascending generation of both the matrilineal and matrilineal families and both the consanguineal and affinal descendants. Discussing on the classificatory system, Radcliffe and Daryll (1969:9) assert: “The inclusion of two relatives in the same terminological category implies that there is some significant similarity in the customary behaviour or social relations”. This assertion shows that in a classificatory system, the choice of the label to designate a particular group of kinsmen as so is explained by the way ego behaves towards those people. Working with the Masai tribe, for example, Radcliffe and Daryll (1969: 18) discovered that the word father (menye) label ego’s the father’s brother or ego’s the father’s brother’s son. According to their findings, there is some similarity in the way ego interacts these two different fathers. In the same vein, Tax in Murdock (1960:107) asserts that “Persons towards whom ego behaves in the same manner, he will call by the same term […]. Persons to whom ego behaves in a different manner he will call by different terms”. In Burundi, for example, all persons whom a man calls daughters interact with him through an asymmetrical relationship characterized by an avoiding taboo behaviour.

For most anthropologists, classificatory system is the most valid for any research on kinship systems. This view is held by E.R. Leach, M. Angulu, Ayisi E. etc. The problem, however, is that the classificatory system varies with community systems. This means that there are variations in terms of application, use and structure.

'''Significance of Kirundi Kinship Terminology '''

Kinship vocabulary provides a range of items which serve in everyday life communication as community members use them in almost all domains of life. This idea is held by Burundi anthropologists. In his findings, J.B Bigangara (1986) explicates the use of Kirundi kinship terms in conversation, in ordinary speeches and circumstantial discourses, in taking oaths or pledges, in expressing anger through insults, curse, murmuring and blaming among Burundians. In interpersonal interaction, Burundians use kinship words in the place of proper names in order to refer to people outside the communication setting or to address them within it. In nuclear family, for instance, a Burundi spouse does not refer to the partner by a personal name when talking to the children, or other people outside the elementary family. This is why, children, at a certain age ignore the personal names of their parents. This sometimes goes, also, for other members of the family (extended family). Likewise, in conversation, you hear people say: “that is so…, you are so…, He is so of so…”

In addition, kinship words are used in ordinary or simple speeches and even in circumstantial speeches. Havyarimana (1989:36) pinpoints: “En Kirundi, les rapports de parenté se reflètent à travers l’usage courant des termes de parenté que cela soit dans les discours ordinaires ou circonstanciels”. Translated: “In Kirundi, relationships among the kinsmen are reflected through the current use of kinship terms either in everyday life speeches or circumstantial speeches”.

In Burundi society, kinship terms are also used in taking oaths or pledges and in expressing anger through insults, curse, blaming and imprecations. To strengthen personal commitments, people often imbed in their utterances a particular kinship term that refers to a relative who has a taboo relationship with ego. The mention of that kinship term is a promise that ego will assuredly fulfil the commitment. To break the promise should be committing incest, an abomination which is sanctioned by the society. The utterance: “umukǒbwānje”! (my daughter!) is heard, for instance, of a person (man) promising something. In other words, the utterer means that not to do his word would be sexing his daughter. Likewise, as a defence mechanism, many Burundians express anger through insults, blaming, curse, murmuring, etc. The utterer wishes the listener the breach of avoidance taboo relationship. For example, the addresser may say: “Uragaswēra nyoko (fuck your mother). This is an attack to the addressee, for there is an avoidance taboo relationship between a Burundi male and his mother. The choice of kinship terms in society depends on many factors as Stephen A. Tyler (1972:253) admits that “ the choice of terms from one language or the other [...] depends more specifically on social features; in this case, on the religious, as well as ethnic, identity of the speaker.” Tyler, here, is demonstrating the fact that the classification of kinship terms is culture related.

'''Nomenclature of Kirundi Kinship Terminology '''

All the taxonomies on Kirundi Kinship terminology divide Kirundi kinship terms into 2 categories, that is, consanguineal and affinal kinship terms. Within each division, there are three subdivisions, namely the generations of the parents (ascending generations), the ego generation (fraternals) and the generations of children (descending generations).

'''Consanguineal Kinship Terms

This category embraces all the terms used by ego to label kinspersons related to him by birth.

'''a)	Ascending Generations

Under this category are classified terms designating all kinsmen considered in the family as parents to ego. The first stage of parents includes genitor parents, the second stage consists of cogenitors and the 3rd stage includes the potential parents, that is, the cross cousins of ego’s parents. 1° The first ascending generation It includes parents of the 1st generation or + 1 generation. 2° The Second Ascending Generation or + 2 generation This group includes ego’s father’s father and mother, ego’s mother’s father and mother, their brothers and sisters and their cousins. The terms used go for both the patrilineal and matrilineal grandparents. Terms of the 3rd and fourth ascending generation exist in the Kirundi kinship system (sogókuruza: my father’s father’s father, inákuruza: his/her mother’s mother’s mother) but they are not frequent.

b)	Horizontal Generation 

This is ego generation or zero generation. It includes ego’s siblings, ego’s uncles’ children, ego’s aunts’children and ego’s half brothers and sisters. These are kinsmen socially considered as equal to ego.

c) The Generation of Children 

The most commonly known terms in Kirundi kinship system are three descending generations. The first descending generation includes direct descendents of ego, the children of his brothers and sisters, the children of his cousins both parallel and cross (table 4). In the description, complex terms or phrases are not listed. This is because they are made of the generic term or simple term plus a possessive. This is not a problem per se, for any one who knows the language is aware of the use of possessive adjectives. Another reason to this omission is that to mention the possessives for all terms would require a whole dissertation. It would be a waste of time since the work is not concerned with the morpho-syntax analysis of the Kirundi kinship terminology. Only elementary terms and forms which exist as compounds in the language are listed.

The second and third descending generations include ego’s son and daughter‘s children, ego’s brother and sister’s son and daughter’s children, ego’s cousins’ grand children. It also extends to the children of the former in the third descending generation.

'''Affinal Kinship Terms '''

Like the terms based upon birth, marriage-based kinship terms embrace : parents, fraternals and children.

a)	Generation of Parents

Under this division are grouped the nuclear parents of ego’s spouse, their brothers and sisters and their cous.

b) Fraternals

Affinal fraternals consist of the brothers and sisters of ego’s spouse and his cousins. In a polygamous family, the wife of ego’s husband is classified under ego generation.

c) Generation of Children

Affinal children include the spouse of ego’s son or daughter, their brothers and sisters and their cousins (table 9).

The Kirundi kinship system (7 generations: 3 ascending generations, the ego generation, 3 descending generations) comprises 28 main terms (charts 1 and 2, tables 6 and 10). It is important to note, here, that the Kirundi language uses possessives in compounds and derivatives. Whenever there is a direct kinship tie between ego and his relative, the possessives -ānje, - āwe -îwé (my, your, his) are added to the elementary term.

Nevertheless, in relationships at the second or third stage, the singular possessives are replaced by plural possessives (-ăcu, -ănyu, -ăbo) with the same meaning. It is worth mentioning that plural possessives are not affixed with the core kinship terms in the relationships between direct relatives (first stage relationships). Thus, murámwācu (our brother-in-law), murámwānyu (your brother-in-law), murámwābo (their brother-in-law) standing respectively for our brother’ wife’s sister, your brother’s wife’s sister, their brother’s wife’s sister do not exist in the kinship terminology. To convey the same meaning those terms are used in two words: murámu wâcu, murámu wânyu, murámu wâbo. As seen above, Kirundi kinship terminology takes into account Kroeber and Lowie’ s terminological differentiation criteria, namely the criterion of generation, sex, affinity, lineality or colaterality, bifurcation and polarity(Fried,MH1980:320). Firstly, the generation criterion distinguishes ascending and descending generations. The ascending generations group the genitors at all stages: dātá (my father), dātáwăcu (my patrilineal uncle) and sogókuru (my grandfather). Whereas the descending generations consist of all the descendants of ego. Secondly, sex differentiation is a significant criterion in the study of Kirundi kinship terminology. The sex of the speaker and referent determines the term to be used when addressing or referring to a particular kinsperson. For example, a woman calls her brother’s wife murámukazānje. On the contrary, a male ego will call this brother’s wife murámwānje. There are, however, terms which are not affected by this criterion. These include: umuvyârá (cross cousin), umwǔzukuru (grandchild). Thirdly, Burundians distinguish relatives of different lines and sides by labelling them by different terms. This criterion is referred to as colaterality or lineality. For example, dātá (my father) and dātáwăcu (my patrilineal uncle) are both used to designate parents of different stages. Likewise, dātáwăcu (my patrilineal uncle) and mārúme (my matrilineal uncle) are used to refer respectively to the uncle on the mother’s side and that on the father’s side. Fifthly, bifurcation is another phenomenon in the Kirundi kinship terminology. We speak of bifurcation when, in a kinship system, we take into account the sex of the relative to ego. The example, here, is māmáwăcu (my matrilineal aunt) and mārúme (my matrilineal uncle). The two are parental family terms, yet because of their sexes, they have different labels. Finally, in Burundi kinship terminology, there are 2 distinctive terms for any relationship. This phenomenon is referred to as polarity. Filiation, for instance, comprises dātá (my father) and mwânānje (my child). There are examples, however, where this criterion is not maintained. Thus, sisters will call each other mwěnewâcu (my sister).

On the aforementioned criterion, we may add the age differentiation. In Kirundi kinship system, age is a considerable element. It distinguishes the elder (mukúru) from the younger (murúmuna). Of two brothers, the elder refers to his younger as murúmunānje, while the latter refers to the former as mukúrwānje.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

=== '''Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge:Havard University Press === === Ayisi, E.O. (1979). An Introduction to the Study of African Culture. 2nd ed. London: Heinemann === === 'Bigangara, J. B. (1986). Pour une Anthropologie de la Famille et Mariage === Traditionnel au Burundi: Expression et valeurs africaine burundaise. Bujumbura. === '''Ethel, A. (1989). “Culture Patterning of Speech Behaviour in Burundi” in Gumperz, J. John and Hyms, Dell (Eds).Directions in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. === === '''Firth, R. (1956). An Introduction to social Anthropology. London: the New English Limited === === '''Fried, M.H. (1980). Readings in Anthropology. 2nd Ed, vol2. Cultural Anthropology. Newyork: Thomas y Crowell Company. === === '''Murdock, G.P. (1960). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Company. === === '''Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. === === '''Piddington, R. (1965). Kinship and Geographical Mobility. London: Leiden E J. Brill. === === '''Radcliffe, B. A.R. (1939). Taboo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. === ===  ______________ (1969) structure and Function in Primitive society. Cambridge: === '''Cambridge University Press. === Radcliffe, B.A.R. and Daryll, F. (1967). African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. === === Rodegem, B. (1965). Patrimoine Culturel Rundi. Tome3 Vie Sociale Individuelle. Bujumbura, (septembre 1965) === === Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. === === Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. === === Zuure, B. (1931). L’âme du Murundi. Paris : Gabriel Bauchesne et ses Fils. === === Winick, C. (1969). Dictionary of Anthropology. Totowa: Littlefied, Adams and Co. === === The Linguistic Encyclopedia (1991). London: Routledge. === === Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 2ed 2007. === === Hornby, A.S. (2006). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. === === Richard J.C. et al (1989). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman. ===

=== Atlas Linguistique de l’Afrique centrale : Atlas Linguistique du Burundi ACCT-CERDOTOLA, 1985. === === Mey, J. L. How to Do Things with Words: “A social Pragmatics for Survival” in IPRA, Vol4, n°2, June 1994 pp 229-263. === === Ngarambe, p et Vincke, J L. “Pragmatique de la Terminologie de la Parenté Rundi” in La Civilisation des Peuples des Grands Lacs. Colloque de Bujumbura 4-10 septembre 1979, pp 360-363. === === Ngowenubusa, D et Alii. “La Terminologie Familiale au Burundi” in QVS, vol4, n°12, 1970 pp 1-35. === === Nterere, J B. “La Signification de la Famille Parentale au Burundi” in QVS, vol2, n°16, 1969 pp 1-17. === === Song Meilee-Wong. “Imperatives in Requests: Direct or Impolite-Observation from Chinese” in IPRA, vol4, n°4, December 1994. ===