The Vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon Kinship - article ; n°103 ; vol.27, pg 113-128

Georg Pfeffer

Description

L'Homme - Année 1987 - Volume 27 - Numéro 103 - Pages 113-128
16 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Sujets

• Sociologie, société et politique

Informations

• Publié par: L-HOMME0
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1987
• Nombre de lectures: 28
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Georg Pfeffer
The Vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon Kinship
In: L'Homme, 1987, tome 27 n°103. pp. 113-128.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Pfeffer Georg. The Vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon Kinship. In: L'Homme, 1987, tome 27 n°103. pp. 113-128.
doi : 10.3406/hom.1987.368859
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1987_num_27_103_368859o -14
Georg Pfeffer
The Vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon Kinship
this viewed imply deviations since classification comparison Germanic of Georg affinity relatives partial the direct Pfeffer, as is terms language a given from ; of system contradictions the knowledge, can Old for pre-Christian The due Lounsbury's be English females of rejected. recognition, Vocabulary alternating the Lounsbury's Anglo-Saxons have to and terminological the The « Old been Omaha symmetric canonical of however, German details Anglo-Saxon neglected thesis can Type of rules kinship order exchange. the be the regarding by III reconstructed Anglo-Saxon disqualifying can historical ». Kinship. terms. When be As reconstructed Germanic such, linguistics. — the for « nomenclature Kinship a prohibited idea the prescription systems male only of But terms diachronic side even by degrees may of a would in reveal only, close with kin the be »
I. Introduction
More than twenty years ago, Floyd G. Lounsbury (1964 : 375) made it
« abundantly clear that the early Latin and early Germanic kinship systems
were Omaha systems based on this [i.e. « Type III »] skewing rule ». So far,
this view has not been disputed in detail, although some scholars have not
admitted the general existence of « Omaha » systems as such. In addition to
this general rejection, this article will probe into the details of Germanic vocab
ulary of kinship to show their incompatibility with the elaboration of Lounsb
ury's « Omaha Type III ». I shall also suggest other relational prerogatives
with regard to the patterning of Germanic vocabulary.
Such suggestions add to an earlier discussion of medieval German vocabul
ary which suffered from inadequate data with regard to GO (Pfeffer 1985 : 58-
59). In the course of the argument, it will become clear why such inadequacies
have to be admitted. The Anglo-Saxon scheme, on the other hand, offers a
straightforward picture in GO, but lacks the German elaboration in G2. This
article will concentrate on the Old English pattern with occasional references to
the closely related Old German scheme when the latter is able to offer answers
to the questions left open by the former.
L'Homme 103, juil.-sept 1987, XXVII (3), pp. 113-128. 114 GEORG PFEFFER
Before entering into ethnographic detail, it is necessary to set out certain
methodological premises. The first issue is that of comparison. This article
does not discuss « systems of Indo-European kinship ». The Indo-European
vocabulary is undoubtedly of common origin, but it has been exposed to
varying historical influences in ancient as well as medieval times. To conceive
of a common terminological system would deny the particular historical dev
elopments of Indo-European languages. Greek and Latin, for example, were
exposed to the standards of a bureaucratic administration for an extended
period, as compared with Anglo-Saxon or Old High German. No « classifica-
tory system » of relationship has been found within the Mediterranean lan
guages, but I am suggesting that such a system should have been registered in
Old German and Anglo-Saxon vocabularies. Indo-Europeanists of the past
have mistakenly chosen, without considering variant historical developments,
the Latin (or Sanskrit) vocabulary of kinship as the frame of reference for pat
terns in other languages. My own comparisons will be applied only to a limited
number of systems and not to a limited number of elements in the almost
unlimited number of systems of Indo-European languages.
This article does not make any attempt to view individual terms of kinship
vocabulary as the outcome of societal behaviour. It also avoids conclusions,
drawn from the vocabulary, with regard to behavioural norms. Conjectures
about the mutual relationship between the pattern of behavioural rules and the
pattern of classification are the most common source of misunderstanding in
the analysis of « kinship systems ». The issue is intricate, because behavioural
patterns indicate the potential of classificatory possibilities. However classif
ication can, at times, develop its own contradictions and manipulative opportun
ities. An analysis of the behavioural (and normative) framework must remain
independent of the terminological analysis. Only after such mutually exclusive
analyses may historical changes and influences be considered.
The problem can be illustrated by arguments from Emile Benveniste
(1973) l. At times this author uses commonsense arguments to explain the lack
of certain terms by behavioural observations. For example, the general viri-
centrism of sources and scholars seems normal since : « ... for a man, there is
no necessity to distinguish by specific terms relatives of his wife, since he does
not co-habit with them » (ibid. : 167). At other times this author advances
conjectures based upon vocabulary about certain institutions. In the present
example of viricentrism, the argument is reversed : « ... we decide that these
terms [...] always strictly applied to the relations established by the wife [...]
We would then have to assume that the patriarchal system triumphed at an
early date » (ibid. : 204).
This article does not « explain » the basic pattern of vocabulary by
observed norms or behaviour. Similarly it in no way « explains » historical
norms or behaviour by reference to terms alone. It is concerned only with the
vocabulary as such. The norms and behaviour of early (pre-Christian) Central
European affinity have recently been discussed by an author who cannot be Anglo-Saxon Kinship 115
accused of any sympathy with alliance theory (Goody 1983). The object of my
investigation into the formal properties of Central European kinship vocabul
aries is to elucidate the basic difference of the medieval patterns as compared
with the modern order. At present terms are part of an analytical bias of our
current cultural values, while the former systems operate within the classif
icatory framework of analogies like the well-known systems of America,
Oceania or India. The old order is characterized by collective oppositions, not
by the designation of individuals. Such collective juxtapositions of a
« classificatory system » seem to contradict the behavioural regulations of the
Christianized Europeans who abrogated a tendency towards « marriage to
close kin » {ibid. : 42-43).
The regular repetition of affinal links between « close kin » probably
coincided with an ordered system of alliance. Such a system would have
been accompanied by a typical « alliance terminology », i.e. a terminological
arrangement indicating diachronic affinal exchange. With the introduction of
Christian marriage prohibitions, the old terminological arrangement probably
did not disappear immediately. But some of the most obvious contradictions
between behavioural norms and traditional vocabulary were bound to demand
solutions. The most striking contradictions would have been those directly
negating the new marriage prohibitions. In « alliance terminology », ego's
affinal partner is a « diachronic affine », or the successor of previous affines,
not a new relation. An individual designated as such an affinal partner might
be related « by blood » as well, and thus be disqualified from marriage by
canonical law. Ego's spouse, in other words, was a « close kin » in the former
system. With the introduction of Christianity, either of these two statuses
could be retained, but not both. If — in a hypothetical vocabulary of kinship
— the term X had stood for « spouse » as well as « cousin », the newly intr
oduced canonical laws would have left no alternative but to specialize the mea
ning of this term, to change it to either « spouse » or « cousin ».
2. The Anglo-Saxon Terms
When reconstructing the pattern of Anglo-Saxon kinship vocabulary, two
kinds of diagram may be employed. The first implies the modern commonsense
notion of the primacy of genealogical over affinal relationships. This convent
ional type of kinship diagram usually places an individual at its centre. A ver
tical line connects « ego » with « parents » and « children ». The plurality of
the latter as « siblings » is marked with a horizontal line ; and parents are
connected by equation marks to show that they are « spouses ». Ego's gener
ation, as well as that below ego, is normally filled by pairs of « siblings » only,
while the upper generations contain pairs of « spouses ». If any « in-laws » are
marked, conventional diagrams represent them as as « spouses » of the geneal
ogical relatives who are primarily connected by vertical or horizontal lines. By 116 GEOR