Kirundi Kinship Terminology
1. 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.
2. 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.
2.1.3 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.
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).
a) Consanguineal Kinship Terms
This category embraces
all the terms used by ego to label kinspersons related to him by birth.
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 (table 1).
2° The Second Ascending
Generation or + 2 generation ( table 2)
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.
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 (table 3). These are kinsmen
socially considered as equal to ego.
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
(table 5).
b) Affinal Kinship Terms
Like the terms based
upon birth, marriage-based kinship terms embrace : parents, fraternals and
children.
Generation of Parents
Under this division are
grouped the nuclear parents of ego’s spouse, their brothers and sisters and
their cousins (table 7).
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
(table8).
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.
References
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.
Claudot, H. (1982). La
sémantique au Service de l’Anthropologie. Paris: Editions du centre
National de la Recherche scientifique.
Ducrot, O. A. (1972). Dire
et Ne pas Dire : Principe de sémantique Linguistique. Paris: Armand
Colin.
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.
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)
Zuure, B. (1931). L’âme
du Murundi. Paris : Gabriel Bauchesne et ses Fils.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment