Edin Dupanović
Kulen Vakuf, Orašac Primary School
Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina
evanath@hotmail.com
Kinship Vocabulary in L1 and L2:
Surviving the Differences
The aim of this paper is to explore: (a) some differences between semantic fields of kinship
vocabulary in Middle South Slavic languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) as L1 and English
as L2, (b) the necessity of making EFL learners aware of the differences between the L1 and the
L2 (cross-linguistic variation), and (c) the possibilities of achieving that awareness.
The semantic field of kinship vocabulary is taught in the earliest stages of EFL learning,
and most probably it is the first instance when, especially young, EFL learners encounter
equivalent lexemes in L1 and L2 whose meanings do not correspond in a one-to-one manner.
Consequently, we must look into the differences in kinship vocabulary between the L1 and the L2
from the point of view of anthropological typology and linguistics, and we will also make
references to Albanian and Macedonian languages where appropriate. Then, the necessity of
making EFL learners aware of the aforementioned vocabulary differences will be discussed. An
early development of this awareness should actually act as an ally in combating the negative
interference of the L1 in EFL learning. In the end of the paper we will offer some methodological
guidelines for developing that awareness.
Key words:
kinship vocabulary, Middle South Slavic languages, conceptual differences,
learners’ reactions
1. Introduction – Notion of Culture and Language Teaching
In recent years a lot has been said and written about the relationship between language
teaching and the culture in which that language is spoken, and by which, eventually, that culture
is being communicated. The whole issue has actually been triggered in the mid-twentieth century
by the shift in the understanding of culture in language teaching. If the word culture is looked up
in any decent English dictionary, two broad groups of definitions can be isolated. MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (MWCD) among other senses gives these definitions:
(a) enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training,
(b) acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as
distinguished from vocational and technical skills,
(c) the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour that depends upon
man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations,
(d) the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social
group.
According to Lyons (1981, pp. 301-302), definitions (a) and (b) define culture in its classical
sense while definitions (c) and (d) cover culture in its anthropological sense. Nowadays, a very
common definition of culture found in linguistic textbooks is the one given by W. H.
Goodenough in his 1957 paper Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics (Wardhaugh, 1998), “A
society’s culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a
manner acceptable to its members, and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of
themselves” (p. 215). This definition covers culture in its anthropological sense. Also, it is
relativistic since it is limited to a certain group of people, and does not apply to the whole of
humankind. It is probably very popular among linguists because, as Bratanić (1991) has put it,
“Goodenough thinks that a person acquires the majority of culture through learning the language,
and consequently, a foreign culture can only be learnt by learning and using the language of that
culture” (p. 35).
In the past, language teachers understood and consequently taught culture in its classical
sense through the medium of literature. However, the passages they used were usually chosen for
their aesthetic and stylistic excellence, much to the horror of their students. The shift away from
this teaching paradigm came with understanding culture in its anthropological sense. Nowadays,
language teachers talk about food, housing, daily routine and many other anthropological
elements of culture. They still teach literature though, but they exercise extreme caution in
choosing texts to work with.
Depending on the curriculum, chosen textbook, personal preferences, and other
considerations teachers can decide whether or not they are going to teach about Christmas
traditions, or the British educational system and National Health Service, to name just a few
cultural issues found in Tom Hutchinson’s Project, a series of English language textbooks
widely used in primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the kinship system of a
particular culture is embedded in that culture’s language, and thus it is unavoidable. The kinship
system is something that just has to be taught.
2. Typology and Differences
In this paper some differences between the kinship systems of Middle South Slavic
languages as L1 and English as L2 will be looked into. The term Middle South Slavic languages
(MSS hereafter) is my translation of the term srednjojužnoslavenski jezici used by Matasović
(2001, p. 123) to acknowledge the common core of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages. I
will start with a very common and rather simple typology of kinship systems, which can be
found in most anthropology textbooks (Haviland, 2004; Kottak, 1991; Nanda, 1991; Vivelo,
1978). This will enable me to show how different these systems are and what the possible
problems in teaching are. This typology takes into consideration the closest relatives of a person
in her or his own generation and the first ascending generation. There are six types in it, named
after some of the cultures in which they are found (Sudanese, Hawaiian, Eskimo, Iroquois,
Omaha and Crow).
However, before I go any further I will explain the conventions of this presentation. In
the diagrams triangles are used to represent males, circles are used for females, and squares for
persons regardless of their sex. Persons connected from above by a horizontal line are children of
the same parents, while a horizontal line connecting persons from underneath represents
matrimonial connection, and a vertical line represents descent. Ego is a person used as a starting
point in defining kin relationship, and alter is ego’s relative (Haviland, 2004). In Diagram 1 A is
ego’s father, and H is her or his sister. Since there are no conceptual differences between basic
kinship terms in English and MSS I will use them for explaining differing concepts, rather than
using more objective but also more complicated tools such as componential analysis or
Marrifield’s system (Moser & Marlett, 1999). These basic or primary kin types are: father (F),
mother (M), son (S), daughter (D), brother (B), sister (Z), with the addition of husband (H) and
wife (W) for representing relationships formed through marriage. In this way cousin can be
defined as FBS – father’s brother’s son or as FBD, FZS, FZD, MBS, MBD, MZS or MZD. To
avoid clustering of abbreviations I will also use child (C) and parent (P), and thus cousin will
simply be PPCC parent’s parent’s child’s child. In this way the blood line is followed and the
fact that cousins share grandparents is acknowledged. Of course, it is assumed that a PPC is a
person other than ego’s parent.
2.1. MSS languages
MSS languages belong to the Sudanese type of kinship terminologies. The main property
of this type is a distinct term used for each relative, and thus the system is also called descriptive.
Of course, it is hard to find examples of pure types in any typology, and MSS are no exception.
Diagram 1 – Sudanese or descriptive kinship system
Diagram 1 represents the Sudanese kinship system and all consanguineal (blood)
relatives are marked by different letters which represent different kinship terms. Since MSS
languages do not represent the pure Sudanese type, they merge certain categories. Most notably
FZ and MZ are both represented by one lexeme tetka. According to Bužarovska (2006)
Macedonian (mac. for short), as another Slavic language, follows suit, but Albanian (alb. for
short), which constitutes a separate branch of Indo-European languages, uses Turkish loanwords
for FZ (hallë) and MZ (teze). Both Macedonian and Albanian, as MSS, make a distinction
between FB and MB. It should also be pointed out that the Turkish kinship system is often used
as an example of the Sudanese type of kinship system. Since in the Bosnian (bos. for short)
language, which has six out of eight possible terms for cousins (PPCC), C lexically equals E
(both are tetka), consequently I equals M (tečić) and J equals N (tetična).
(1) bos.
FZ = MZ (tetka)  FZS = MZS (tečić) & FZD = MZD (tetična)
Although, Croatian (cro. for short) had the same system with slightly different lexemes for
PPCC, this system can nowadays be found only in some dialects and rural speech. Through
semantic change, modern Croatian has reduced this system down to two lexemes: bratić (PPCS)
and sestrična (PPCD). The Serbian language (srb. for short) uses yet a different system. It
considers siblings (PC) and cousins (PPCC) as equals by using the lexemes brat (B) and sestra
(Z) for both, but with the addition of an analytic constructions for the latter as shown in (2) and
(3).
(2) B (brat)
(3) S (sestra)
FBS (brat od strica)
FBD (sestra od strica)
MBS (brat od ujaka)
MBD (sestra od ujaka)
PZS (brat od tetke)
PZD (sestra od tetke)
In the analytic construction brat od strica (“brother of/from paternal uncle”) the preposition od
can be translated either as of or from, and the form strica, referring to FB, is in the genitive case.
The same pattern is used in all other similar expressions in (2) and (3). Since, preposition od is
ambiguous (thus two translations) the whole phrase can be interpreted as “brother, [descendant]
from paternal uncle,” which is the intended meaning, or as “brother of paternal uncle” which
would be another FB.
2.2 English language
The English kinship system belongs to the Eskimo type which emphasizes the nuclear
family (parents and their children), and conceptually merges all other relatives into broad
categories. This type is also called a linear system since it separates direct descendants from
collateral kin.
Diagram 2 shows that different lexemes are used for all the members of a nuclear family,
while all collateral relatives are terminologically merged. Moreover, it is interesting to note that
all nuclear family lexemes are of Germanic origin (father, mother, brother, sister, son and
daughter), while lexemes used for collateral relatives are all of French origin (uncle, aunt,
cousin, nephew and niece). Another interesting feature of this system is the merging of
consanguineal and affinal relatives (relatives by marriage) as shown in (4) and (5) where we also
give the appropriate MSS lexemes. The comparison of most of the lexemes I have mentioned so
far is also given in Diagram 3.
(4) aunt encompasses
(5) uncle encompasses
FZ (tetka)
FB (stric, bos. also amidža)
MZ (tetka)
MB (ujak, bos. daidža)
FBW (strina, bos. also amidžinica)
FZH (tetak)
MBW (ujna, bos. also daidžinica)
MZH (tetak)
Diagram 2 – Eskimo kinship system
Diagram 3 – English and MSS kin lexemes for ego’s and 1st ascending generation
When it comes to PPCC lexemes, Macedonian and Albanian use the same system as
Croatian does. All three distinguish only gender, while disregarding the side of the family and
relationship between ego’s and alter’s parents. PPCC terms for these three languages are given in
(6).
(6)
PPCS
PPCD
cro.
bratić
sestrična
mac.
bratučed
bratučetka
alb.
kushëri
kushërirë
2.3 Additional differences
Apart from the difference in kinship vocabularies in ego’s generation and the first
ascending generation that we have just mentioned, I will mention some other differences as
follows.
One area where additional differences are found is the vocabulary for affinal relatives.
Apart from the terms for spouses of parents’ siblings that we have already mentioned, MSS have
very elaborate terminology for affinal relatives in ego’s generation. English, on the other hand,
uses the system which mirrors the consanguineal relationships of a nuclear family. It uses
consanguineal kin lexemes for nuclear family members as a base for forming phrasal compounds
in which the other element is formant -in-law. Thus, by using six lexemes, the English language
encompasses sixteen different relationships. For the same relationships MSS use fourteen
different lexemes if we do not count all the synonyms. As a Sudanese type they should use
sixteen terms, but there is an interesting merging. Both DH and ZH are represented by the same
lexeme – zet, and in the same way SW and BW are represented by one lexeme – snaha or snaja
in Serbian. A generational merger is not very common, although it exists in the Omaha and Crow
types of kinship systems. We may ask why merge different generations, especially in a system of
the Sudanese type. The most plausible explanation is that these two lexemes apart from referring
to the particular relationships (zet – DH & ZH, snaha – SW & BW), also acknowledge the fact
that these persons are newcomers into the family, and all the members of the nuclear family refer
to them in the same way (except their spouses, of course).
Table 1 – Correspondence between MSS and English affinal lexemes
English
father-in-law
brother-in-law
son-in-law
MSS
HF – svekar
WF – punac, tast
HB – djever
WB – šurjak
HZH – zaovac
WZH – pašenog
badžanak (bos.)
ZH zet
DH -
MSS
HM – svekrva
WM – punica, tašta
HBW – jetrva
WBW – šurjakinja
HZ – zaova
WZ – svastika
snaha
English
mother-in-law
sister-in-law
BW –
DW –
daughter-in-law
3. Implications on ELT
I have established the fact that the semantic fields of kinship vocabularies in MSS and
English are different. These differences are of a conceptual, and consequently structural nature.
When I speak of conceptual differences, it actually means that, as Archibald (1997) has put it,
“second language learning certainly involves looking at things from a different perspective” (p.
525), or as Vilke (1999) has put it,
“it is important to understand that words do not name objects, but classify
concepts . . . [and] when we start learning a foreign language, we are familiar with
many concepts . . . [but] in the process of learning a foreign language we learn new
concepts, and broaden or narrow the ones we have already adopted” (p. 179).
Vilke (1999) has also recommended that for the young learner, up to the age of 11, new
concepts should be introduced gradually and carefully (p. 182), but as we have already said,
kinship vocabulary is unavoidable. At a very early stage of learning English as the L2 young
MSS speaker will come across lexemes such as uncle and aunt (auntie), which are conceptually
different from their MSS counterparts, as shown in the examples (4) and (5). Consequently, the
English teacher will be faced with a question, “How come there is only one word for three
people?”
Almost without fail, a person starts learning his or her first foreign language with a
subconscious assumption that the structures of the L2 grammar and lexicon are the same as in the
L1. Never mind the fact, that if it was true, the very need for the existence of any language
teacher would be obliterated. A dictionary with a CD would do. This assumption is the result of
conceptual conditioning imposed by L1.
On one occasion I was teaching a group of adult learners attending an evening English
course. Somewhere near the end of the lesson, as we had some time left, we got involved into an
unplanned discussion about vocabulary. I was explaining that it may happen that a particular
word in the L1 does not have an appropriate pair or counterpart in the L2, that words can have
several different meanings both in L1 and L2, but that those meanings need not correspond to
each other. At that point one of the students commented, “Wow, nobody ever told me that!” This
person is a bank clerk and a graduate from the School of Business Administration. That means
that he went through sixteen years of formal education (8 years of primary school, 4 years of
secondary school, and 4 years of university). Out of those sixteen years for at least nine years he
had some instruction in some L2. This was a clear indication that the student managed to
preserve the aforementioned assumption despite the years of L2 teachers’ efforts. In other words
proficiency in communicative competence, which is a goal of students’ and teachers’ efforts, was
not achieved.
My idea is that if we can make students aware of the differences between the L1 and the
L2 it will help both of us, students and teachers, to achieve our goal easier and faster. This idea
seems plausible from observation, but needs to be confirmed by appropriate research, and this
paper should serve as a starting point. The goal is language learner proficiency which means that
he or she is very much aware of linguistic and cultural differences and knows how to express
him or herself clearly in the L2 – using concepts, and consequently language units of the L2.
When teaching English language kinship vocabulary, teachers are not introducing new
concepts. Concepts of kin relationships already exist in the L1 and the L2, but they are different.
In terms of broadness of concept there are two possible situations – the concept under discussion
is wider, or more elaborate in the L2, or vice versa, it is wider in the L1. This distinction is
significant because learners will react to them in different ways.
If the concept is wider in the L2, the learners will find themselves in an unknown
situation which may seem odd to them – provided they have understood the new concept.
According to Vilke (1999) vocabulary pertaining to new concepts is significantly more difficult,
at least for young learners. Thus, this situation is likely to result in a higher instance of mistakes
made by the learners. For example, MSS do not distinguish between borrow and lend – both are
posuditi. Native speakers of MSS usually use only one of the two English lexemes; and borrow
seems to be more frequently used. Another example is the MSS lexeme ruka which is used for
both hand and arm. There is an MSS counterpart for hand, which is šaka, but this lexeme is both
hand and fist, with the latter as a more common understanding of the lexeme šaka.
If the concept is wider in L1, as it usually is when we talk about kinship vocabularies in
MSS and English, the learners tend to feel frustrated because of being unable to express
themselves as precisely as they would in their L1. I will give two examples.
The first one is my own. I remember my frustration of not being able to express gender of
nouns in English. I was wondering, for example, how to say ‘my friend’ and at the same time
emphasize that the person is a girl and not a boy. If I was to say that it was ‘my girlfriend’, it
would imply a different meaning – a different kind of relationship. The solution to this problem
was simple. The only thing I needed to do was to use the phrase my friend and the appropriate
personal pronoun (she) in the next sentence. However, I was trapped in my L1 concept – I was
trying to pack both pieces of information (“friend” and “female”) into one single word, which
English simply does not allow.
The second example involves the young learners I teach. Once they understand that, for
example, the lexeme uncle encompasses FB (stric), MB (ujak, bos. dajža), FZH and MZH (both
tetak) inevitably comes the question, “But how will I say that it is my stric (FB)?” Actually, the
student wants to say that the person under discussion is his or her FB, and not MB, FZH or
MZH. Moreover, the student wants to say that in one single word, without having to use any
other means. Being unable to do so, they feel frustrated. Anyway, these other means are
probably unknown to the student at this point of learning the L2 since the basic kinship
vocabulary is taught in the very early stages of foreign language learning. Depending on the age
of our students, and if they insist on making the difference, we can teach them how to explain
who exactly that person is. They can either use an additional sentence (It is my father’s brother.)
or they can learn how to use adjectives paternal or maternal. However, both of these strategies
have their problems. The former strategy involves the use of the ’s genitive which looks simple,
but it is not an easily mastered grammatical structure, and the latter strategy involves the use of
adjectives which are rather formal. Learners should be made aware of this stylistic difference,
but that is not something young learners will be able to understand.
This problem actually takes us into the discussion of methods. One of the methodological
tools in situations like these is to train students to voice their concerns so that the teachers can
deal with them appropriately. Language teachers have achieved a certain level of proficiency in
the L2, and have adopted L2 concepts to the degree that sometimes they stop being aware of the
differences between the L1 and L2, or they sometimes simply forget due to various reasons. My
ELT teacher Professor M. Vilke would give her students very wise advice, “When you start
teaching English, you should start learning a new language – if for no other apparent reason than
just to see how your students feel.”
In MSS we can often observe that children, when acquiring their L1, acquire some
kinship vocabulary items as proper nouns, especially when a person’s name is not used along
with the appropriate lexeme and when the child has only one relative in that particular category.
MSS do not have articles to help children distinguish between proper and common nouns as
English does. Later on they understand that these kinship terms are not proper names, but it can
be quite some time before they understand what the actual relationship is. Having this in mind,
one good and often used method of teaching is the use of a family tree. Although it can often be
seen in the textbooks, the most effective way of using it with young learners is to involve them in
project work. They should make a family tree of their own family with pictures, or at least
names, if it is too complicated to use photographs. Since the concepts of kin relationships are
different in MSS and English, associating English lexemes with familiar faces or names and
reinforcing that connection through different activities, can be used to avoid the difficulty of
adopting a different concept.
Since we are dealing with different concepts in the L1 and L2, we will have to use the L1
from time to time as we use it for teaching grammar. With young learners we teach grammar
without teaching it, or without teaching it overtly – to be more precise. However, with older
students, who are able to understand abstract grammatical notions, teachers need to use the L1
when these two reasons are present. Firstly, the number of lessons in a week is limited, and
secondly the students are learning the L2 in an L1 setting. Due to these two reasons students
cannot learn through mere exposure to the L2, but they need to learn through instruction.
Moreover, the language of instruction is almost always more complicated than the target
language – so the use of the L1 is justified. Of course, the teacher should exercise moderation
and not overuse the L1. In order for the explanation to be effective each teacher should be
equipped with a good number of appropriate examples.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that teaching foreign language is as much about teaching
concepts as it is about teaching linguistic units, and any English teacher who has tried to teach
present perfect, for example, to the MSS speaker is painfully aware of this fact. Thus, teacher
should make all the necessary efforts to present the new or different concepts to the students, and
even more to reinforce them through different activities. This is especially important for the
students who learn the L2 in their L1 setting where the language classroom is the only place
conducive to adopting the newly acquired L2 concepts.
References
Archibald, J. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. In W. O´Grady, M. Dobrovolsky, & F.
Katamba (Eds.), Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction (pp. 503-539). London:
Longman.
Bratanić, M. (1991). Rječnik i kultura. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Bužarovska, E. (2006). Termini na srodstvo vo balkanskite jazici. In Kulavkova, K. (Ed.),
Balkanska slika na svetot (pp. 310-321). Skopje: MANU.
Haviland, W. A. (2004). Kulturna antropologija. Jastrebarsko, Croatia: Naklada Slap.
Kottak, C. P. (1991). Cultural Anthropology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Matasović, R. (2001). Uvod u poredbenu lingvistiku. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
Moser, M., & Marlett, S. (1999). Seri Kinship Terminology. SIL Electronic Working Papers.
Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.sil.org/silewp/1999/005/silewp1999-005.pdf
Nanda, S. (1991). Cultural Anthropology (4th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Vilke, M. (1999). Obrada vokabulara. In Y. Vrhovec, et al. (Eds.), Strani jezik u osnovnoj školi
(pp. 179-186). Zagreb: Naprijed.
Vivelo, F. R. (1978). Cultural Anthropology Handbook: A Basic Introduction. New York:
McGraw Hill Book Company.
Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Dictionaries
Anić, V. (2003). Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi liber.
Čedić, I. (Ed.). (2007). Rječnik bosanskog jezika. Sarajevo: Institut za jezik.
Isaković, A. (1995). Rječnik bosanskoga jezika: karakteristična leksika. Sarajevo: Bosanska
knjiga.
Merriam-Webster´s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) [CD ROM version 3.1.1.401]. (1997).
Dallas: Zane Publishing.
Škaljić, A. (1966). Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.
Šonje, J. (Ed.). (2000). Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod “Miroslav
Krleža” & Školska knjiga.
Tanocki, F. (1986). Rječnik rodbinskih naziva. Osijek: Revija “Božidar Maslarić”.
Vujanić, M. (Ed.) et al. (2007). Rečnik srpskog jezika. Novi Sad: Matica srpska.