1887
image of Influence of gender on the use of kinship terms in English and Serbian
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.20055.tad
2021-09-28
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I.
    (1995) Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bjeletić, M.
    (1999) Kost kosti (delovi tela kao oznake srodstva). Kodovi slovenskih kultura. Delovi tela, 4, 48–67, Beograd. dais.sanu.ac.rs/123456789/4699
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Britannica, T.
    Editors of Encyclopaedia (2017, June21). Kinship terminology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/kinship-terminology
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carsten, J.
    (2004) After Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. D’Andrade, R.
    (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166645
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166645 [Google Scholar]
  6. D’Andrade, R. & Strauss, C.
    (1992) Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166515 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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, 2942, World Bank, Washington, DC. doi:  10.1596/1813‑9450‑2942
    https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2942 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 fromhttps://eprints.ucm.es/14097/1/Marta_De_Toffol.pdf
  9. Đorđević Crnobrnja, J.
    (2011) Nasleđivanje između običaja i zakona. Etnografski institut SANU. Beograd. Retrieved fromhttps://etno-institut.co.rs/storage/47/5e5a915f01d24_J.Djordjevic_Nasledjivanje.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S.
    (2003) Language and gender. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511791147
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gavrilović, Lj.
    (2017) Patrijarhat. Mali leksikon srpske kulture – Etnologija i antropologija 70 izabranih pojmova, ur.Ljiljana Gavrilović . 291–297. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, Etnografski institut SANU.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Holland, D. and Quinn, N.
    (1987) Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660 [Google Scholar]
  14. Holmes, J.
    (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed.Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Kinship
    Kinship. (n.d.) InCambridge Dictionaryonline. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kinship?q=kinship
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z.
    (2006) Language, Mind, and Culture. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Labov, W.
    (1990) The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2), 205–254. 10.1017/S0954394500000338
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000338 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, R.
    (1975) Language and woman’s place. Language and society, 2, 45–79. Cambridge: CUP
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Morgan, L. H.
    (1871) Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Murdock, G. P.
    (1949) Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ozer, K.
    (2016) Makrolingvistički aspekti oslovljavanja u nemačkom, srpskom i mađarskom jeziku (doktorska disertacija, Filozofski fakultetNovi Sad). https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/8290
  25. Palmer, G. & Sharifian, F.
    (2007) Applied cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.7.02pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.02pal [Google Scholar]
  26. Palmer, G.
    (1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Parkin, R.
    (1997) Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Prodanović Stankić, D.
    (2017) Cultural conceptualisations in humorous discourse in English and Serbian. InF. Sharifian. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics, 29–48. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.
    (1952) Structure and Functions in Primitive Society. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Radojičić, D.
    (1965) The Serbian Kinship System and its Terminology (MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada). Retrieved fromhttps://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/831/1.0105362/2
  31. Savić, S. i Radović, D.
    (2014) Upotreba i značenje termina za označavanje rodbinskih odnosa učenika VIII razreda osnovne škole: srpski jezik. u: S. Savić i D. Radović. (red.), 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]
  32. Schneider, D.
    (1984) A Critique of the Study of Kinship. University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.7203
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7203 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sharifian, F.
    (2015) Cultural Linguistics. InF. Sharifian. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture, 473–493. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stone, L.
    (2010) Kinship and Gender: An introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Swartz, T. T.
    (2009) Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: patterns, variations, and implications in contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 191–212. 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tannen, D.
    (1990) You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William and Morrow Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Trudgill, P.
    (1972) Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1(2), 179–195. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500000488
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000488 [Google Scholar]
  39. Yanagisako, S. J. & Collier, J. F.
    (1987) Gender and Kinship: Essays Towards a Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Yu, N.
    (2007) The Chinese conceptualization of the heart and its cultural context. InF. Sharifian. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics, 65–86. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1075/celcr.7.06yu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.06yu [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.20055.tad
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.20055.tad
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: English ; gender ; Serbian ; kinship terms ; cultural linguistics
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error