Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 46:2 (2023) ► pp.265–289

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Kinship terms in Stau

 | Nankai University
Published online: 9 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.23006.gat
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen−1 and Gen−2 differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen−1 distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen+1 consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen+1 affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen+1 affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen0 kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen0 referential/possessive terms using the tʰɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen+1 terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen−1 terms follow the Eskimo system.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Location
    • 1.2Genetic affiliation
    • 1.3Previous research
    • 1.4Stau residence patterns, marriage customs, and family structure
  • 2.Kinship terminology and notation
    • 2.1Kin type notation and abbreviations
    • 2.2Kinship distinctions
  • 3.Stau kinship terminology
    • 3.1Overview
    • 3.2Main phonological and morphological features
      • 3.2.1Barytonesis for vocative
      • 3.2.2- used for kin older than Ego
      • 3.2.3Collateral consanguineal marker tʰɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə)
    • 3.3Kinship dyads
    • 3.4Distinctions and neutralizations
      • 3.4.1Gen+2, Gen−1, Gen−2 vocative
      • 3.4.2Gen+2, Gen−1, Gen−2 referential/possessive
      • 3.4.3Gen+1 vocative
      • 3.4.4Gen+1 referential/possessive
      • 3.4.5Gen0 vocative
      • 3.4.6Gen0 referential/possessive
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Barnard, Alan & Anthony Good. 1984. Research practices in the study of kinship. Research Methods in Social Anthropology. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 2001. Counting the family: Family group classifiers in Yi (Tibeto-Burman) languages. Anthropological Linguistics 43(1).1–17. [URL]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donati, Margherita. 2013. Vocative. In Georgios K. Giannakis, Vít Bubeník, Emilio Crespo, Chris Golston, Alexandra Lianeri, Silvia Luraghi & Stephanos Matthaios, (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edgar, J. H. 1933. The ancient Yong and possible survivals in Szechwan. Journal of West China Research Society 61.246–251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Robin. 1983. Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. 501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the Philological Society 115(1).14–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales PhD dissertation.
Gates, Jesse P. & Won Ho Kim. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2).263–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P., Thub.bstan Nyi.ma & Tshe.ring Rgyal.mtsan. 2019. Tibetan dining etiquette: A sociolinguistic analysis of a normative discourse text in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 18(2).73–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodgson, Brian Houghton. 1853. Sifán and Hórsók vocabularies, with another special exposition in the wide range of Mongolidan affinities and remarks on the lingual and physical characteristics of the family. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 221.121–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1874. Essays on the languages, literature, and religion of Nepāl and Tibet: Together with further papers on the geography, ethnology, and commerce of those countries. London: Trübner and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honkasalo, Sami. 2017. Two traditional Stau stories. Asian Highlands Perspectives 441.285–316.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. A grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A culturally anchored description. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
. 2020. Verb classes in Horpa: A study of Balang Geshiza and Poxiu Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43(2).255–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Bufan. 1990. Daofuyu yuyin he dongci bianhua 道孚语语音和动词变化 [Phonology and verb conjugation in Daofu]. Minzu Yuwen 民族语文 51.23–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Daofuyu 道孚语 (The Stau language). In Qingxia Dai, Bu-fan Huang, Ailan Fu, Renzeng Wangmu & Ju Liu (eds.), Zangmianyu shiwuzhong 藏缅语十五种 (Fifteen Tibeto-Burman languages), 1–45. Beijing: Yanshan chubanshe 北京：燕山出版社.，戴庆夏、黄布凡、傅爱兰、仁增旺姆、刘菊.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Bufan, Shouchun Xu, Jiaying Chen & Huiyin Wang. 1992. Zangmian yuzu yuyan cihui 藏面语族语言词汇 [A Tibeto-Burman lexicon]. Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan chubanshe 中央民族学院出版社.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2012. The Tangut kinship system in Qiangic perspective. In Nathan W. Hill (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages IV, 211–258. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Anton Antonov, Yunfan Lai, & Lobsang Nima. 2014. Person marking in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 13(1).82–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Anton Antonov, Yunfan Lai & Lobsang Nima. 2017. Stau (Ergong, Horpa). In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edition), 597–613. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1975. Kin groups and social structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1909. Classificatory systems of relationship. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 391.77–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Paris III dissertation.
Lai, Yunfan, Xun Gong, Jesse P. Gates & Guillaume Jacques. 2021. Tangut as a West Gyalrongic language. Folia Linguistica 54(s41–s1).171–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, Berthold. 1916. The Si-hia language, a study in Indo-Chinese philology. T’oung Pao 17(1).1–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1871. Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter. 1949. Social structure. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prins, Marielle. 2016. A grammar of rGyalrong Jiaomuzu (Kyom-kyo) dialects: A web of relations. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Rosthorn, A. 1897. Vocabularfragmente ost-tibetischer dialecte. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor-genländischen Gesellschaft 511.524–531.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. PNAS 116(21).10317–10322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1998. Nominal morphology in Caodeng rGyalrong. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 69(1).103–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Qianzi Tian. 2013. Chuanxi Huoeryu Gexihua dongci duixie chutan 川西霍爾語格西話動詞對協初探 (Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa). Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2).221–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Qianzi. 2019. Situation aspects and their transformation in Gexi Horpa. [格西霍爾語的情境體及轉换]. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 10(2).276–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Qianzi & Jackson T.-S. Sun. 2016. Géxī Huòěryǔ dòngcí cígàn chóngdié xíngshìshù 格西霍尔语动词词干重叠形式数 [Verbal argument-number marking via stem reduplication in Gexi Horpa]. The Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 云南师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版) 4(48).15–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Qianzi & Jackson T-S. Sun. 2019. Géxī Huòěryǔ dòngcí de shíyǔtǐ 格西霍爾語動詞的時與體 [On tense and aspect in the Gexi Horpa verb]. Language and Linguistics 20(3).451–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tunzhi. 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The rTa’u language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(245).147–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Outline of Bra’go variety of rTa’u (Horpa). Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation.
Vanderveen, Chantel. 2015. A phonology of Stau. Langley, BC: Trinity Western University MA thesis.
Wang, Stephen S. 1970–1971. Consonantal clusters of Tibetan loanwords in Stau. Monumenta Serica 291.631–658. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya & Jingming Fan. 2020. Brag-bar kinship system in synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 83(3).479–503. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Sihong. 2013. A reference grammar of Ersu: A Tibeto-Burman language of China. Brisbane: James Cook University Doctoral dissertation.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue