Cover not available
Part of
Language Description Informed by Theory
Edited by Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin and Diana Guillemin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 147] 2014
► pp. 361–382

Shifting relations

Structure and agency in the language of Bininj Gunwok kinship

This chapter examines the connections between shared cultural knowledge about kinship structure and the pragmatic inferences that enable interlocutors to assess each other’s (multiple) perspectives. By drawing on Bininj Gunwok conversational data this chapter shows how linguistic choices are influenced by the dynamics of social relationships, particularly by context-specific speaker goals and stance-taking that focuses on intersubjectivity. The choice of kinterm is an essential component of stance-taking. A switch in kinterm shifts the indexes of various aspects of speaker agency (e.g. effecting solidarity, ratifying relationships with addressee and referent, justifying joint action). Kinterms in four different contexts are discussed: basic kin terms for affines; basic kin terms for skewed relationships; kin term shifts within unnamed superclasses; and triadic terms.

Published online: 28 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.15gar
References
Agha, Asif
. 2007. Language and Social Relations . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne
(eds). 2009. Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface . Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Berndt, Ronald M. & Berndt, Catherine H
. 1992/1964. The World of the First Australians. Aboriginal Traditional Life: Past and Present . Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice
. 1971. The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms. Man (N.S.)6: 79–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope
. 2007. Principles of person reference in Tzeltal conversation. In Person Reference in Interaction , Tanya Stivers & Nick J. Enfield (eds), 172–202. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dousset, Laurent
. 2005. Structure and substance: Combining ‘classic’ and ‘modern’ kinship studies in the Australian Western Desert. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 16(1):18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
. 2007. The stance triangle. InEnglebretson (ed.), 139–182.
Englebretson, Robert
(ed). 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok. A Pan-dialectal Grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune , 2 Vols. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2005. View with a iew: Towards a typology of multiple perspective Constructions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(1): 93–120.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S.
2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4): 427–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garde, Murray
. 2003. Social Deixis in Bininj Gun-wok Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of Queensland.
. 2011. The forbidden gaze: The 1948 Wubarr ceremony performed for The American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land. In Exploring the Legacy of the 1948 Arnhem Land Expedition , Martin Thomas & Margot Neale (eds). Canberra: National Museum of Australia.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1982. Discourse Strategies . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinnen, E.
2006. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk . 26: 699–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Robert M. & Fussell, Susan R
. 1991. Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition 9: 2–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B.
2009. Fanti Kinship and the Analysis of kinship Terminologies . Champaign IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Laughren, Mary
. 1982. Warlpiri kinship structure. In Languages of Kinship in Aboriginal Australia [Oceania Linguistic Monographs 24], Jeffrey Heath, Francesca Merlan & Alan Rumsey (eds), 72–85. Sydney: Oceania (University of Sydney).Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G.
1964. A formal account of Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology W. H. Goodenough (ed.), 351–393. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Merlan, F.
1989. Jawoyn relationship terms: Interactional dimensions of Australian kin classification. Anthropological Linguistics 31(3–4): 227–263.Google Scholar
Moore, Sally Falk
. 1963. Oblique and asymmetrical cross-cousin marriage and Crow-Omaha terminology. American Anthropologist . 65(2): 296–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Harold W.
1978. Australian Kin Classification . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff Emanuel.A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey
. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen Arie
. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zeitlyn, David
. 1993. Reconstructing kinship or the Pragmatics of kin talk. Man (N.S.)28(2): 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar