An optimality theoretic grammar of human kin classification

Paul Miers
English and Cultural Studies
Towson University, Towson, MD 21252 (miers@towson.edu)

These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The
significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible
messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just
the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design.
.
C. E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”

Fitness originated with self-replication, and ultimately its meaning and role
in evolutionary explanation must be tied to the cycle of life and replication of
hierarchically nested evolutionary units through time.

Richard Michod, Darwinian Dynamics

Abstract
The assumption that kin terms reference genealogically defined types has long been
challenged by evidence suggesting coancestry is not universally recognized as the basis
for determining kinship. Here I propose that the central kin classification mechanism is
an Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar. Input to the grammar is an asymmetric binary
classification tree which splits a generationally stratified kin space into male and female
branches. Output is a tree which satisfies a strict ranking of universal constraints on the
use of structural markers from the input tree as second order labels for sorting sexed
branches into equivalence classes. I use the proposed grammar to generate terminologies
from each of the four types of classification systems first identified by Lowie and explain
the underlying logic which differentiates “Iroquois,” “Dravidian,” and “Crow” type
variations on bifurcate merging classification systems. . I also show how OT-KCG
provides two kinds of information needed to compute the marginal value of recruiting a
social partner from a coalition of individuals who both cooperate and compete for
reproductive success: 1) the ordinality or rank of a targeted class relative to a sexed ego;
and 2) the expected cardinality of the targeted class. I hypothesize that human OT-KCG
is an evolutionary adaptation of a mechanism used by primates to compute within- and
between class rankings in a linear dominance hierarchy
 2

Cross-cultural variation in kinship terminologies, first documented by Morgan in

the 19th century, remains puzzling. The standard model assumes that kin terms are
defined over genealogical types and that classification systems differ only with respect to
how kin types are partitioned and assigned reference terms. The universality of
genealogical reckoning, however, has long been questioned, and the standard model fails
to provide a functional explanation for variable encoding of genealogical relatedness.
One alternative to the standard model treats kin terms as labels for social categories
determined by rules for marriage and membership in descent groups. Another alternative
holds that kin terms are generated from the relative product of other kin terms
independent of any frame of reference common to all classification systems. Although
both these accounts are consistent with the notion that kin classification is based on social
rather than biological relatedness, they too fail to explain typological variation in
classification systems by specifying constraints either on the lexicalization of an
underlying conceptual space or on the recursive expansion of kin term products.
Here I propose a solution to the kinship puzzle where the central kin classification
mechanism is a language independent Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar operating on a
binary classification tree which partitions kin space into generationally stratified
equivalence classes. OT grammar was originally formulated for natural language
phonology by Prince and Smolensky and first applied to kin classification by Jones. In an
OT grammar, output descriptions of the input compete to satisfy a strict ranking of a set
of soft constraints. The winning output is the candidate description incurring the fewest
violations of a constraint ranked higher then any constraint better satisfied by rival
candidates, and typological variation across grammars is limited by the number of
possible constraint rankings.
The kin classification model described here is not a kin detection mechanism,
rather it is a mechanism for classifying members of a social group by rank within classes
ordered by distance from a sexed ego. It shares certain properties with and is perhaps a
human adaptation of the sort of mechanism postulated by Seyfarth and Cheney to account
for the ability of baboons to differentiate changes of rank within and between matrinlines
in a linear dominance hierarchy. I assume that individuals can be assigned class markers
 3

based on any number of culturally variable attributes such as coresidence, perinatal care,
and/or genealogical relatedness (.(Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides) The function of the
grammar is to map a lexicon of kin terms to classes of these makers which have been
ranked and ordered relative to a sexed ego. In this solution, cross-cultural variation is a
not a function of how individuals are assigned makers but rather a function of constraints
on how much information from an underlying representation (UR) of classification space
is preserved in a labeled set of output classes, I assume that the UR maximizes
information about the class structure of reproductive coalitions formed in a parent
generation and that output constraints determine how much of that information is
preserved in the class labels any ego uses to reference both generational peers and
collateral members of the parent generation. I further assume that the order and rank of
labeled output classes provides ego with information used to calculate the marginal utility
of recruiting mates and social partners from particular classes.
The key notion in this model is that rank is determined by the nodal dominance
hierarchy of an output tree and social distance is encoded by the path length from a node
for ego to a target class. In the baboon model social rank within matrilines is assigned
according to birth order, and distance is determined by a ranking of lineages within a
dominance hierarchy. Individual baboons largely ignore changes of rank within other
lineages but do respond to social interactions between members of different lineages
which threaten the overall ranking of lineages. The grammar of baboon kin classification
thus remains fixed as individual social relationships evolve. Although human
classification systems rarely switch from one type to another, local variation within types
is widespread.
The model proposed here treats variation within types as a function of how
constraints on lexical mappings from the UR are defined across generational branches of
a classification tree. It is possible for constraint rankings to vary between generations in
the same classification system and for lexemes from a multi-generation dominance
hierarchy to be used within a single generation to differentiate lineages which belong to
the same ordinal class, i.e. are at the same distance from ego. As I will show, this notion
of trans-generational variation can explain both the difference between “Iroquois” and
 4

“Dravidian” type systems as well as the so-called “generational skewing” observed in

“Crow” and “Omaha” type systems.

the have only one grammar for classifying social partners. In the human kin
classification model, by contrast, strict ranking of constraints for each generational tree
allows many different grammars to emerge

Input to the OT grammar proposed here is a set of structural makers defined at

the terminal nodes of a classification tree Output is a tree satisfying universal constraints
on the partitioning of those markers into labeled classes. An output tree ranks each class
of markers by generation within a nodal dominance hierarchy, and classes from different
branches of this hierarchy which share the same rank within a generation are well-
ordered by their path length from the class containing a marker for a sexed ego. In
addition, the cardinality of each class within a generation is determined by the fraction of
that generation’s structural markers it contains. Kin terms assigned to markers within
classes inherit the rank and order of the class from the output tree. Class membership,
however, need not be defined genealogically and can reflect any salient principle such as
coresidence or perinatal care.
Information on the rank, order, and cardinality of classes is encoded in lexical
trees which assign kin terms to the classes defined by the output tree. It provides
information needed to compute the marginal value of recruiting a social partner from a
targeted class of individuals who both cooperate and compete for reproductive success. I
hypothesize that human kin classification grammar (KCG) is an evolutionary adaptation
of a mechanism used by primates to represent within- and between-class rankings in a
linear dominance hierarchy.
In what follows, I show how a three constraint OT kin classification grammar
(OT-KCG) generates canonical versions of the four types of classification system first
described by Lowie -- bifurcate collateral, lineal, bifurcate merging, and generational –
when the classification tree in a nested input set is governed by the same constraint
ranking. Variations on these canonical forms, such as “Dravidian,” and “Crow” type
 5

terminologies can be explained by assuming that a constraint ranking can vary by

generation across a nested set.
 6

Typological variation and the genealogical grid

The standard model of kin classification assumes that kin terms are mapped to an
underlying genealogical grid where kin types defined by the marriage of ego’s parents in
generation G+1.
(1).

G+1 Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
MB MZ M F FB FZ

0
G Ο Δ Ο Δ Ο ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBS FZD FZS

Ego and ego’s sibs in G0 are the offspring of the two G+1 parent types, and the other pairs
of male and female G0 sib types are the offspring of the matrilateral and patrilateral G +1
sib types.

Δ O O Δ Δ O Δ O O Δ Δ O
G+2
FMB FMZ FFZ FFB FF FM MF MM MMZ MMB MFB MFZ

O Δ Δ O O Δ
G+1
Ch Ch Ch Ch FZ FB F M MZ MB Ch Ch Ch Ch

Δ ego O
G0
ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh Ch Ch B Z Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh

-1 ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh

G Ch Ch Ch Ch
ChCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh
Ch Ch Ch Ch

ChCh ChCh ChChC ChCh ChCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh
G-2 ChCh ChCh hCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh
 7

The names for each of the four classification systems are from Lowie, whose typology is
based on a two dimensional partitioning of G+1 kin types indicated by the dashed lines:
one dimension for differentiating lineal and collateral types (± collaterality), and the other
dimension for bifurcating collateral types according to the sex of the lineal type (±
bifurcation).

Bifurcate collateral (Fig. 1a). The Turkish terminology assigns a unique kin term
to each of the four G+1 collateral types, marking both collaterality and bifurcation.
The descendents of the lineal class are all siblings who have four classes of
cousins.

Lineal (1b). The English terminology uses terms which distinguish lineal from
collateral G+1 types but does not bifurcate collateral types. Thus aunts and uncles
belong to a single G+1 collateral class and all G0 offspring of collateral types
belong to a single cousin class.

Bifurcate merging (1c). The Seneca Iroquois terminology bifurcates G+1collateral

types but does not distinguish lineal types from same sex collateral types. This
partitioning creates two G+1 classes: “parallel” (lineals and same sex collaterals),
and “cross” (opposite sex collaterals). All offspring of G+1 parallel types are
classificatory siblings; offspring of G+1 cross types are cross-cousins to the sibling
class.

Generational (1d). The Samoan terminology neutralizes both collaterality and

bifurcation, creating a single class of male and female G +1 types and a single G0
sibling class where types are differentiated relative to ego’s sex.
 8

a. Turkish
Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
+1
MB MZ M F FB FZ G
dayí diaza ana baba apça hala
bifurcate
collateral
(+co / +bi) Ο
Ο Δ Ο Δ ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBS FZD FZS G0
dayí diaza aba (e♀); aga (e♂) apça hala
çocuğu çocuğu kardaş (y♀; y♂) çocuğu çocuğu

b. English
Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
MB MZ M F FB FZ G+1
uncle aunt mother father uncle aunt
lineal
(+co / - bi)
Ο Δ Ο Δ Ο ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBZ FZD FZS G0
cousin sister brother cousin

c. Seneca
Iroquois Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
MB MZ M F FB FZ G+1
hakhnoʔsẽh noʔyẽh noʔyẽh haʔnih haʔnih ake:hak
bifurcate
merging
(-co / +bi)
Ο Δ Ο Δ Ο ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBZ FZD FZS G0
ahtsiʔ (e♀); kheʔkẽ:ʔ (y♀)
akyäʔse:ʔ akyäʔse:ʔ
hahtsiʔ(e♂); heʔkẽ:ʔ(y♂)

d. Samoan
Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
+1
MB MZ M F FB FZ G
tamā tinā tinā tamā tamā tinā
generational
(-bi; -co)
Ο Δ Ο Δ Ο ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBZ FZD FZS G0
uso ( = ego sex ); tuagane (≠ ♀ego sex); tuafafine (≠ ♂ ego sex ); tei (y)

Figure 1: Genealogical representation of four kin classification systems

M = mother; F= father; Z = sister B = brother; D = daughter; S = son;

MB = mother’s brother; MZ = mother’s sister; MBD = mother’s brother’s daughter, etc.
Ο, ♀ = female; Δ, ♂ = male; e = elder; y = younger;
co = collaterality; bi = bifurcation
9
 10

G
+1
Δ Ο Ο Δ Δ Ο
MB MZ M F FB FZ

0
G Ο Δ Ο Δ Ο ego Δ Ο Δ Ο Δ
MBD MBS MZD MZS Z B FBD FBS FZD FZS

a) standard 2G genealogical tree

generation

lineal collateral

♀ ♂ parallel cross

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
M, F MZ FB FZ MB

generation+1

lineal+1 collateral+1

ego collateral0 parallel+1 cross+1

parallel0 cross0 ♀+1 ♂+1 ♀+1 ♂+1

 11

generation

“parent” “sibs”

ego “sibs” same sex opp sex

same opp
♀ ♂ sex sex ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

generation+1

lineal collateral

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
mother father aunt uncle
 12

b) kin classification tree

rank generation+1
▲

lineal+1 collateral+1
“parent” “parent’s sibs”

lineal0 collateral0 = lineal+1 sex ≠ lineal+1 sex

ego
= lineal0 ≠ lineal0
♀ ♂ sex sex ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
cross & parallel
ego sibs”
cross & parallel cousins

►
order
 13

G+1 G+1

♀ co ♂ co

// X // X
= sex ≠ sex = sex ≠ sex
(M) (MZ) (MB) (F) (FB) (FZ)
a) female and male aligned cohorts: members do not mate within cohort

G+1

LIN+1 CO+1

♀ ♂ //+1 X+1

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
(M, F) (MZ, FB) (FZ, MB)
b) merger of cohorts into reproductive coalition: members can mate within classes. LIN and // classes can
mate.

G+1
2 3

LIN+1 CO+1
1 2
4 4

LIN0 CO0 //+1 X+1

(♀ V ♂ ego) 3 3 5 5 5 5

//0 X0 ♀+1 ♂+1 ♀+1 ♂+1

↓
( = ego) (≠ ego)

?
(ego) (Z, B) (MZCh, FBCh, FZCh, MBCh )
c) projection of G0 classes as ♀ V ♂ aligned cohort dominated by LIN+1. Partitioning of G0 classes
dominated by CO+1 is undefined.
 14

The first level partitioning from the root (G) divides the cohort into a left branching lineal
types (lin) and a right branching collateral (co) types. Partitioning of the left branch
terminates with a single lineal class of male and female type markers. This left most
branch is the focal class and the right collateral branch designates the male and female
markers types aligned with the male and female lineal types. The first partitioning of the
collateral branch, divides class markers into parallel (//) and cross (X) type. Parallel
types

The tree uses five internal structural markers to generate the six terminal marker types:
1) a root node indicating the generational index; 2) a left-most terminal LIN (lineal)
marker designating the male or female branch on the descending path to ego; 3) an
intermediate CO (collateral) sub-root marker; and 4) two parity makers that take their sex
from the LIN marker with the same generational index as the parity markers. The //
(parallel) parity marker designates a path for all cohort branches with the same sex as the
lineal marker, and the X (cross) marker designates a path that sums all opposite sex
branches:
Given a pair of G n input trees, the optimal output tree is the one that best satisfies a
ranking of the three universal constraints on each Gn projection:

MAXCO maximize collateral classes

NoCO no collateral classes
NoPAR no parity classes

MAXCO is a faithfulness constraint defined on the input which requires using all markers
from the input tree and allows the insertion of extra parity markers in the output tree
when they are dominated by a collateral marker. NoCO and NoPAR are markedness
constraints defined on the output. They forbid using either the collateral marker or the
parity markers to partition terminal output classes.
There are six possible rankings of these constraints, but only four rankings
generate effectively distinguishable tree structures:
 15

MAXCO >> NoCO , NoPAR → bifurcate collateral

NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO → lineal
NoCO >> MAXCO >> NoPAR → bifurcate merging
NoCO , NoPAR >> MAXCO → generational
 16

Input tree Output trees

merged G+1 cohorts G+1 equivalence classes
a) bifurcate collateral

MAX >> NoCO, NoPAR G+1

+1
Terminals dominated by LIN form LIN+1 CO+1
one class; each terminal ♀, ♂
+1
dominated by CO forms a class.
// X
+1
G
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

+1 +1
LIN CO b) lineal

♀ ♂ //+1 X+1
NoPAR >> MAX >> NoCO G+1
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ Terminals dominated by LIN+1 form
one class; terminals dominated by LIN+1 CO+1
LIN = lineal CO+1 form one class.
♀, ♂ // ♀, // ♂, X ♀, X♂
CO = collateral
// = parallel (= lineal sex)
X = cross (≠ lineal sex)
♀ = female c) bifurcate merging
♂ = male

MAXCo = maximize collateral classes NoCO >> MAX >> NoPAR G+1
NoCO = no collateral classes
NoPAR = no parity classes Terminals dominated by LIN+1 and
+1
// form one class; terminals //+1 X+1
dominated by X+1 form one class
lin ♀, lin ♂
X ♀, X ♂
// ♀, // ♂

d) generational
G+1
NoCO, NoPAR >> MAX
lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂
+1
Terminals dominated by the G
root form single class.
 17

markedness constraints on input tree social classes defined at terminal nodes;

determines partitioning for social fitness marked features not expressed

a) bifurcate collateral
G+1
+1
G
MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR
LIN CO
LIN CO
terminals dominated by ♀, ♂
LIN node form one class;
♀, ♂ // X
each terminal dominated // X
by CO node forms a class.
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

b) lineal G+1 G+1

NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO
LIN CO
terminals dominated by ♀, ♂ LIN CO
LIN node form one class
terminals dominated by
//// XX ♀, ♂ ♀, ♂
CO node form one class.
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

c) bifurcate merging
G+1 G+1
NoCO >> MAXCO >> NoPAR
LIN C
COO
terminals dominated by // (=lin) X (≠ lin)
LIN & // nodes form one ♀, ♂
♀, ♂
class // X
terminals dominated by X ♀ ♂
node can form two
classes ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

d) generational
G+1
G+1
NoCO, NoPAR >> MAXCO LIN C
COO
♀, ♂ ♀, ♂
tags dominated by the G
+1
//// XX
root form one class.
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
 18

a) bifurcate collateral
MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR

Terminals dominated by LIN form one class; each

terminal dominated by CO forms a class.
All tags are lexically interpretable

b) lineal
NoPAR >> MAXCO >> NoCO

Terminals dominated by LIN form one class;

all terminals dominated by CO form one class.
 19

a) bifurcate collateral

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ ) MAX NoCO NoPAR

►{( lin♀, lin ♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )} * *
{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} *! *
{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X} * ! *
( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G ** !

b) lineal

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ ) NoPAR MAX NoCO

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )} * ! *
►{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} * *
{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X} * ! *
{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G} **!

c) bifurcate merging

( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ ) NoCO MAX NoPAR

{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )} * ! *
{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} *! *
►{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X} * *
{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G **!

d) generational
( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ ) NoCO NoPAR MAX
{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀) (//♂) (X♀) (X♂ )} *! *
{( lin♀, lin♂)LIN (//♀, //♂.X♀, X♂ )CO} *! *
{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂)// (X♀, X♂ )X} *! *
►{( lin♀, lin♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂ )G} **

* = violation mark; ! = fatal violation; ► = winning candidate

 20

G+1

LIN+1 CO+1

LIN0 CO0 //+1 X+1

(♀ V ♂ ego) 3 3 5 5 5 5

//0 X0 ♀+1 ♂+1 ♀+1 ♂+1

( = ego) (≠ ego) 6
0 0
G G G0 G0
(♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)
0 1 2

G+1

LIN+1 CO+1
1 2 4

LIN0 CO0 G0
(♀ V ♂ ego) (// , X) (♀, ♂)
0 1 2

c) bifurcate merging G+1

2 3

//+1 X+1
1 2 4 4

//0 X0 //0 X0
(♀ V ♂ ego, //) (X) ( = ego) (≠ ego)
0 1 2

d) generational G+1
1

G0
(♀ V ♂ ego, //, X)
0
 21

+1
a) bifurcate collateral: H(G ) = 2.25

LIN+1
//♀+1 //♂+1 X♀+1 X♂+1
+1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂)
G
rank

h =1.58 h = 2.58 h = 2.58 h = 2.58 h = 2.58

0
G0 LIN
//0 X0 G0 G0 G0 G0
(♀ V ♂ ego ) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)

0 1 2
+1
b) lineal: H(G ) = 0.91
LIN+1 CO+1
+1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂) (//♀, //♂, X♀, X♂)
G
rank

h =1.58 h = .58
0
G0 LIN 0
CO G0
(♀ V ♂ ego ) (//, X) (♀, ♂)
0 1 2

c) bifurcate merging: H(G+1) = 0.91

//+1 X+1
G+1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂) (X♀. X♂)
rank

h = .58 h =1.58
0
G0 // X0 //0 X0
(♀ V ♂ ego, // ) (≠ ego sex) (= ego sex) (≠ ego sex)
0 1 2

+1
d) generational: H(G ) = 0
+1
G
G
+1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂, X♀, X♂)
rank

h= 0

G0 G0
(♀ V ♂ ego, //, X )

0
order
 22

Δ O O Δ Δ O Δ O O Δ Δ O
G+2
FMB FMZ FFZ FFB FF FM MF MM MMZ MMB MFB MFZ

O Δ Δ O O Δ
G+1
Ch Ch Ch Ch FZ FB F M MZ MB Ch Ch Ch Ch

0 Δ ego O
G
ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh Ch Ch B Z Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh

ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh

G-1 Ch Ch Ch Ch
ChCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh
Ch Ch Ch Ch

ChCh ChCh ChChC ChCh ChCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh
G-2
ChCh ChCh hCh ChCh Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh
 23

G+2
MAX >> NoCO, NoPAR
3 4

LIN+2 CO+2
2 3 5 5

LIN+1 CO+1 //+2 X+2

1 2 6 6 6 6
4 4

LIN0 co0 //+1 X+1 //♀+2 //♂+2 X♀+2 X♂+2

3 3 5 5 5 5
(♀ V ♂ ego ) 7
0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
// X // ♀ //♂ X♀ X♂ G G G G
6 8
G0 G0 G0 G0 G0 G0 G0 G0
1 4
7 9
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
G G G G G G G G G G-1 G-1
2 5 8 10
-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
G G G G G G G G G G G
0 1 2 3
order

G+2
LIN+2 //♀+2 //♂+2 X♀+2 X♂+2
( lin ♀, lin ♂)

G+1
LIN+1 //♀+1 //♂+1 X♀+1 X♂+1 (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)
( lin ♀, lin ♂)

G0 LIN0 //0 X0
rank

(♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)

(♀ V ♂ ego )

G-1 (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)

G-2 (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)

0 1 2 3
order
 24

G+2

NoPAR >> MAX >> NoCO 3 4

LIN +2 CO+2
(♀ lin ,♂ lin)

2 3

LIN +1 CO+1
(♀ lin , ♂ lin)

1 2
0
LIN CO0
(♀ V ♂ ego)

G-1 G-1

G-2 G-2
0 1 2

grandmother (♀) great aunt (♀)

G+2 grandfather (♂) great uncle (♂)

mother(♀) aunt (♀)

G+1 father(♂) uncle (♂)
rank

sister(♀)
G0 ego
brother(♂)

daughter(♀) niece (♀)

G-1 son (♂) nephew (♂) cousin

-2 granddaughter(♀) grand niece (♀)

G grandson (♂) grand nephew (♂)

0 1 2
order
 25

G+2

LIN +2 CO+2

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
grandmother grandfather great aunt great uncle

G+2

LIN +2 CO+2
cousin
LIN +1 CO+1

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
mother father aunt uncle

G0

LIN +1 CO+1 U CO+2

cousin
LIN 0 CO0
♀ V ♂ ego
♀ ♂
sister brother

G-1

LIN +1 CO+1 U CO+2

cousin
LIN 0 CO0

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
daughter son niece nephew

G-2

+1 +1 +2
LIN CO U CO
cousin
LIN 0 CO0

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
granddaughter grandson grandniece grandnephew
 26

G +2

♀ ♂
ehci̧ ehcé

G+1

+1 +1 +2
LIN (CO ) U (CO )

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
seno̧ setḠsenó¸o̧ setá

G+0

LIN +1 0 +1
(CO ) U ((CO ) U (CO ))
+2

♀ V ♂ ego
e y

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
sedadae sedé so̧de sečile

G-1

LIN 0 (CO0) U ((CO+1) U (CO+2))

seba
♀ ♂
setué seya

G +2
ehcé
 27

G+2
+2 +2
LIN CO

♀ ♂ //+2 X+2
ebe dede
//♀+2 //♂+2 X♀+2 X♂+2
diaza apça hala dayí

+1
G

LIN+2 CO+2
+1 +1 +2 +2
LIN CO // X

♀ ♂ //+1 X+1 //♀+2 //♂+2 X♀+2 X♂+2

ana baba diaza çocuğu apça çocuğu hala çocuğu dayí çocuğu
// ♀+1 //♂+1 X♀+1 X♂+1
diaza apça hala dayí

G0

LIN+1 (CO+1) U (CO+2)

LIN0 CO0 // X
♀ V ♂ ego
e y //♀ //♂ X♀ X♂
kardaş diaza çocuğu apça çocuğu hala çocuğu dayí çocuğu
♀ ♂
aga aba

G-1

LIN+1 (CO+1) U (CO+2)

0 0
LIN CO // X
yiğin
♀ ♂ //♀ //♂ X♀ X♂
kiz oğul diaza çocuğu apça çocuğu hala çocuğu dayí çocuğu

G-2
+1 +1 +2
LIN (CO ) U (CO )

LIN0 CO0 // X
torun yiğin
//♀ //♂ X♀ X♂
diaza çocuğu apça çocuğu hala çocuğu dayí çocuğu
 28

reference terms - kin

dede (♂) diaza (//♀), apça (//♂)

G+2 ebe (♀) hala (X♀), dayí (X♂)

diaza (//♀) diaza çocuğu,

ana (♀) apça (//♂)
+1 apça çocuğu
G baba (♂)
hala (X♀) hala çocuğu,
dayí (X♂) dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, diaza çocuğu,

apça çocuğu apça çocuğu
0 aga (e♀); aba (e♂)
G ego hala çocuğu, hala çocuğu,
kardaş (y) dayí çocuğu dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, diaza çocuğu,

apça çocuğu apça çocuğu
-1
G kiz (♀), oğul (♂) yiğin hala çocuğu, hala çocuğu,
dayí çocuğu dayí çocuğu

diaza çocuğu, diaza çocuğu,

apça çocuğu apça çocuğu
G-2 torun yiğin hala çocuğu, hala çocuğu,
dayí çocuğu dayí çocuğu

0 1 2 3

terms of address – kin (FN = first name)

G+2
G+2 dede (♂) , ebe (♀)

(CO+1 U CO+2)
LIN+1
G+1 ana (♀), baba (♂),
diaza (//♀). apça (//♂)
hala (X♀), dayí (X♂)

CO0 U (CO+1 U CO+2)

FN aga (e♀);
G0 ego
FN aba (e♂)
FN (y)

G-1 FN
G-2 FN
0 1 2 3

terms of address - nonkin village (FN = first name)

+2
G FN dede (♂) FN hala (♀)
FN hala (♀)
G+1 FN dayí (♂)
FN aga (e♀);
0
G ego FN aba (e♂)
FN (y)
G-1 FN
-2
G FN
0 1 2 3
 29

Type B – “Iroquois”
G+2
(lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂ X ♀, X ♂)
FF, FFB, FFZ, FM, FMB, FMZ
MM, MMZ, MMB, MF, MFB, MFZ

//+1 X+1
( lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂) (X ♀, X ♂)
F, FB, FFBS, FFZS FMBS, FMZS FZ, FFBD, FFZD FMBD, FMZD
M, MZ, MFBD, MFZD MMBD, MMZD MB MFBS, MFZS MMBS, MMZS

//0 X0 //0 X0
( = ego sex) (≠ ego sex) (= ego sex) (≠ ego sex)

G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1

G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2

0 1 2

G+2 G+2

G+1 //+1 X+1

parallel cross
+1 +1 +1
PL = // PL = // PL = X PL =X+1
G0 parallel parallel cross cross

PL= ego sex PL≠ ego sex PL= ego sex PL≠ ego sex
G-1 parallel cross parallel cross

G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2

0 1 2
 30

G +2

♀ ♂
atkso:t hakso:t

G+1

//+1 X+1

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
noʔyẽh haʔnih ake:hak hakhnoʔsẽh

G0

//+1 X+1
akyäʔse:ʔ
e y

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
ahtsiʔ kheʔkẽ:ʔ hahtsiʔ heʔkẽ:ʔ

G-1

L0 = ego sex L0 ≠ ego sex

♀ ♂ ♀ ego ♂ ego
khe:awak he:awak
♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
hehsõʔneh khehsõʔneh heyẽ:wõtẽʔ kheyẽ:wõtẽʔ

G -2

♀ ♂
kheya:teʔ heya:teʔ
 31

Type A – “Dravidian” G+2

3 4

//+2 X+2
(lin+2 ♀, lin+2 ♂, //+2♀, // +2♂) (X+2♀, X+2♂)
FF, FFB, FM, FMZ, MM, MMZ, MF, MFB FFZ, FMB, MMB, MFZ
2 3 5 5

+1
//+1 X+1 // +1 X
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
(lin ♀, lin ♂, // ♀, // ♂) (X ♀, X ♂) (= lin sex) (≠ lin sex)
F, FB, FFBS, FMZS FZ, FFBD, FMZD FFZS, FMBS FFZD, FMBD
M, MZ MFBD, MMZD MB, MFBS, MMZS MFZD, MMBD MFZS, MMBS
2
1 4 4 6 6 6 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
// X // X // X // X0
= ego sex ≠ ego sex = ego sex ≠ ego sex = ego sex ≠ ego sex = ego sex ≠ ego sex
1 3 5 7 7
-1
G-1 G G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1
2 4 6 8 8
-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
G G G G G G G G-2

0 1 2 3

G
+2
//+2 X+2
L = PL L ≠ PL L ≠ PL L = PL
G+1
parallel cross cross parallel

PL = PPL PL = PPL PL ≠ PPL PL ≠ PPL PL ≠ PPL PL ≠ PPL PL = PPL PL = PPL

G0 parallel parallel cross cross cross cross parallel parallel

-1 PL = ego sex PL ≠ ego sex PL = ego sex PL ≠ ego sex PL = ego sex PL ≠ ego sex PL = ego sex PL ≠ ego sex
G parallel cross cross parallel cross parallel parallel cross

G-2 G
-2
G
-2
G
-2
G
-2
G
-2
G
-2
G
-2
G
-2

0 1 2 3
 32

Dravidian kin classification grammar differs from Iroquois in that some opposite sex G 0
classes are composed of potential mates. In the basic Iroquois grammar, by contrast, G 0
members of opposite sex cross classes are the parent’s of potential mates for ego’s
children.
 33

G +2
tapun

G+1

+1 +2 +1 +2
L =L L ≠L

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂
iten timin uhun un

G0

L+1 = L+2 L+1 ≠ L+2

L0= ego sex L0 ≠ ego sex L0 = ego sex L0 ≠ ego sex

e y ♀ ego ♂ ego ♀ ego ♂ ego ♀ ego ♂ ego

noatun noatahan nauvnen namanin newum nevin rahniaruman rahnpetan

G-1

L+1 = L+2 L+1 ≠ L+2

L0 = ego sex L0 ≠ ego sex L0 = ego sex L0 ≠ ego sex

= ego sex ≠ ego sex ♀ ego ♂ ego ♀ ego ♂ ego = ego sex ≠ ego sex
netan netin netan netin
noein rahniaunian noein rahniaunian
iaruman petan iaruman petan

G +2
mwipun
 34

“Crow”

G+1
G+1

M co+1
F co+1
ego B, Z MZ MB
ego FB FZ
B, Z

MZCh FBCh FZS FZD

MBCh
S,D ZCh, BCh FBCh FZSCh FZDCh
S,D ZCh, BCh MZChCh MBChCh

G+1 tags
G0 tags
G−1 tags
 35

maximal bifurcate merging G+1

2 3

//+1 X+1
4 4

X♀+1 X♂+1
1 2 5 5 5 5

//0= ego sex X0 ≠ ego sex // 0 X0 // 0 X0

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 3

G-1 G-1 // -1 X-1 // -1 X-1 // -1 X-1 // -1 X-1

0 1 2

H(G+1) = 1.25

//+1 X♀+1 X♂+1

G +1 ( lin ♀, lin ♂, //♀, //♂)

h = .58
h =2.58 h = 2.58

//0
rank

G0 X0 //0 X0 //0 X0
(♀ V ♂ ego, // ) (≠ ego sex)

G-1 G-1 G-1 //-1 X-1 //-1 X-1 //-1 X-1 //-1 X-1
(♀, ♂) (♀, ♂)

0 1 2
order
 36

Siriono G+2
ari (♀), ami (♂)

G+1

//+1 X

+1
X♀+1 X♂
ezi (♀), eru (♂) ari ami

//0 X0 // 0 X0 // 0 X0
= ego sex ≠ ego sex = ego sex ≠ ego sex = ego sex ≠ ego sex
anongge anongge ♀ ego ♀ ego ♀ ego ♀ ego
ari yandi akwani akwanindu
♂ ego ♂ ego ♂ ego ♂ ego
ami ari akwanindu yandi

G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1

eididi akwanindu (♂) ♀ V ♂ ego ♀ ego ♀ V ♂ ego ♀ ego
akwani (♀) akwanindu (♂) eididi akwanindu (♂) akwanindu (♂)
akwani (♀) ♂ ego akwani (♀) akwani (♀)
akwanindu (♂) ♂ ego
akwani (♀) eididi

G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2

ake ake ake ake ake ake
0 1 2

G+2 ari (♀), ami (♂)

+1
G ezi (♀), eru (♂) ari (X♀) ami (X♂)

♀ ego ♂ ego ♀ ego ♂ ego

ari (♀) ari (♀), ami (♂)

0
G = ego sex ≠ ego sex
yandi (♂) yandi (♀)
anongge anongge
akwanindu (♂)
akwanindu (♂)
akwani (♀)

♀ ego ♂ ego ♀ ego ♂ ego

-1 akwanindu (♂)
G eididi eididi akwanindu (♂) akwanindu (♂) eididi
akwani (♀) akwani (♀) akwani (♀)
akwanindu (♂) akwanindu (♂)
akwani (♀) akwani (♀)
-2
G ake ake ake
0 1 2
 37

Baniata G+1

//+1 +1
X♀
+1
X♂
ae (♂), ina (♀) ina tuɔ

//0 = ego sex X0 ≠ ego sex // 0= ♀ X0 = ♂ G0

dare mimɔ ina ae ha

G-1 G-1 // -1 X-1 // -1 X-1 G-1

ha ubue ♀ ♂ = ego ≠ ego ha
ina ae dare mimɔ
2

G+1 ae (♂), ina (♀) ina (X♀) tuɔ (X♂)

ae (♂), ina (♀)

dare mimɔ
G0
(= ego) (≠ ego)
ha

ae (♂), ina (♀)

-1 dare (= ego),
G mimɔ (≠ ego)
ha ubue ha
0 1 2
 38

Trobriand G+2
tabu

G+1

//+1
+1
X♀ X♂
+1

ina (♀), tama (♂) tabu kada

//0 = ego sex X0 ≠ ego sex // 0= ♀ X0 = ♂ G0

tuwa(e) latu (♂ ego)
luta tabu tama
bawada(y) tabu (♀ ego)

G-1 G-1 // -1 X-1 // -1 X-1 G-1

latu kada (♂ ego) ♀ ♂ = ego ≠ ego tabu
tabu (♀ ego) tabu tama tuwa(e) luta
bawada(y)

G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2

tabu tabu tabu tabu latu (♂ ego) tabu
kada
(♀ ego)
tabu

G+2 tabu
tabu (X♀)
G+1 tama (♂), ina (♀)
kada (X ♂)
tabu (♀)
tama (♂)
(= ego) (♂ ego)
0 (≠ ego) kada latu (♂ ego)
G tuwa (e)
luta
bawada (y)

(♀ ego)
tabu
tabu (♀)
tama (♂)
G-1
(= ego)
(≠ ego)
tuwa(e)
luta
bawada(y)
latu latu (♂ ego) latu
tabu (♀ ego) tabu
-2
G
0 1 2
 39

G+1

//+1 X+1

+1
tama (♂), ina (♀) X+1♀ X ♂
tabu kada

G0

+1 +1
// X

//0 =ego X0 ≠ego X+1♀ X+1♂

luta latu (♂ ego)
tuwa(e) bawada(y) tabu (♀ ego)
X0♀ X0♂
tabu tama (♂)

G-1

//+1 X+1

0 0 +1
// X X+1♀ X ♂
latu kada (♂ ego) tabu
tabu (♀ ego)
X0♀ X0♂

X-1♀ X-1♂ //-1 X-1

tabu tama (♂) (= ego) (≠ ego)
luta
tuwa(e) bawada(y)
 40

G+1 G+1

lin+1 X +1 LIN+1 X +1
M, MZ MB F, FB FZ
ina kada tama tabu

G
0
= ego ≠ ego LIN0 X0
latu (♂ ego) tuwa(e)
tabu (♀ ego bawada(y)
luta tama tabu

-1 -1 +1 +1
G-1 G G = ego ≠ego = lin ≠ lin
tabu latu kada (♂ ego) tuwa luta tama tabu
tabu (♀ ego) bawada
41
 42

“Iroquois” G+2

lin +2 co+2

lin +1 co+1 = lin

+2 +2
≠ lin

ego C0 +1
= lin ≠ lin+1 +1
= lin ≠ lin+1 +1
= lin ≠ lin+1

=ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego = ego ≠ ego

Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch

ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh ChCh
 43

Turkish G+2

MAXCO >> NoCO, NoPAR

LIN+2 co+2
+2 +2
(lin ♀, lin ♂)

//+2 X+2

+2 +2 +2 +2
( // ♀) (// ♂) (X ♀) (X ♂)

G+1 PL= //+1♀ PL = //+1♂ PL= X+1♀ PL = X+1♂

LIN+1 co +1
( lin ♀, lin+1 ♂)
+1

//+1 X+1

+1
(//+1 ♀) (//+1 ♂) (X+1 ♀) (X ♂)

o 0 0 0
G0 PL= // ♀ PL = // ♂ PL= X ♀ PL = X ♂

LIN0 CO0
(♀ V ♂ ego)
o 0
// X

0 0 0
PL =LIN PL = // PL = X

0 0 0
PPL = LIN PPL = // PPL = X