Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 8:2 (2021) ► pp.346–372

Influence of gender on the use of kinship terms in English and Serbian

Cultural linguistic study

Kinship terms are widely present in the English and Serbian language. However, research on their actual use and the role gender plays in the selection of those terms is fairly scarce. The purpose of this contrastive analysis is to explore the influence of gender on the use of kinship terms among the speakers of English and Serbian and to determine cultural conceptualizations underlying these terms. The study is corpus based. The data were collected by the means of questionnaires and analyzed statistically. Kinship terms represent a culturally constructed category reflected in the lexicon of these two contrasted languages. For this reason, Cultural Linguistics and its theoretical and analytical tools serve as the basis for the theoretical framework for this study. The results of the analysis have shown that gender significantly influences the use and the selection of kinship terms.
Keywords: kinship terms, gender, cultural linguistics, English, Serbian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Definition of kinship
    • 2.2Classifications of kinship
    • 2.3Kinship terminology
    • 2.4Cultural linguistics
      • 2.4.1Cultural schemas
      • 2.4.2Cultural categories
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.20055.tad
References (40)
References
Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bjeletić, M. (1999). Kost kosti (delovi tela kao oznake srodstva). Kodovi slovenskih kultura. Delovi tela, 41, 48–67, Beograd. [URL]
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2017, June 21). Kinship terminology. Encyclopedia Britannica. [URL]
Carsten, J. (2004). After Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1995). The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Andrade, R. & Strauss, C. (1992). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das Gupta, M., Zhenghua, J., Bohua, L., Zhenming, X., Chung, W., Hwa-Ok, B. (2002). Why is Son Preference so Persistent in East and South Asia? A Cross-Country Study of China, India, and the Republic of Korea. Policy Research Working Paper, 29421, World Bank, Washington, DC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Toffol, M. (2011). An English-Spanish Contrastive Analysis of Culturally Loaded Phraseological Units Containing Kinship Terms MA Thesis, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from [URL]
Đorđević Crnobrnja, J. (2011). Nasleđivanje između običaja i zakona. Etnografski institut SANU. Beograd. Retrieved from [URL]
Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavrilović, Lj. (2017). Patrijarhat. Mali leksikon srpske kulture – Etnologija i antropologija 70 izabranih pojmova, ur. Ljiljana Gavrilović et al.. 291–297. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, Etnografski institut SANU.Google Scholar
Gavrilović, Lj., Arbutina, P., Bašić, I., Jovičić, P., Knežević, M., Pavićević, A., Prelić, M., Radojičić, D., Roganović, V. (eds.) (2017). Mali leksikon srpske kulture – Etnologija i antropologija 70 izabranih pojmova, Beograd: Službeni glasnik, Etnografski institut SANU.Google Scholar
Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Jocić, M. (2011). Oslovljavanje i obraćanje. U: Vasić, V.; Štrbac, G. (ur.) Govor Novog Sada. Sveska 2: Morfosintaksičke, leksičke i pragmatičke osobine. 297–346. Novi Sad : Filozofski fakultet, Odsek za srpski jezik i lingvistiku.Google Scholar
Kinship. (n.d.) In Cambridge Dictionary online. [URL]
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, Mind, and Culture. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2), 205–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Language and society, 21, 45–79. Cambridge: CUPGoogle Scholar
Luppi, M. and Nazio, T. (2019). Does Gender Top Family Ties? Within-Couple and between-Sibling Sharing of Elderly Care. European Sociological Review, 35(6), 772–789. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
Ozer, K. (2016). Makrolingvistički aspekti oslovljavanja u nemačkom, srpskom i mađarskom jeziku (doktorska disertacija, Filozofski fakultet Novi Sad). [URL]
Palmer, G. & Sharifian, F. (2007). Applied cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. (1997). Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prodanović Stankić, D. (2017). Cultural conceptualisations in humorous discourse in English and Serbian. In F. Sharifian. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics, 29–48. Singapore: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and Functions in Primitive Society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Radojičić, D. (1965). The Serbian Kinship System and its Terminology (MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada). Retrieved from [URL]
Savić, S. Radović, D. (2014). Upotreba i značenje termina za označavanje rodbinskih odnosa učenika VIII razreda osnovne škole: srpski jezik. u: S. Savić i D. Radović. (Ed.), Iz riznice multijezičke Vojvodine: Jezik–kultura–društvo: sistem rodbinskih odnosa u jezicima nacionalnih zajednica u Vojvodini, 13–45, Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine – Filozofski fakultet.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. (1984). A Critique of the Study of Kinship. University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural Linguistics. In F. Sharifian. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture, 473–493. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017). Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stone, L. (2010). Kinship and gender: an introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Swartz, T. T. (2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: patterns, variations, and implications in contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 351, 191–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William and Morrow Company.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1(2), 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagisako, S. J. & Collier, J. F. (1987). Gender and Kinship: Essays Towards a Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2007). The Chinese conceptualization of the heart and its cultural context. In F. Sharifian. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics, 65–86. Singapore: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar