Koya Language Morphology and Patterns

of Kinship Behavior’
STEPHEN A. TYLER
University of California, Davis

N T H E system of analysis outlined by Lounsbury (1956), any kinship

I system may be analyzed in terms of the relations within and between each
of the domains of linguistic structure, semantics, and pragmatics (behavior) .2
Yet, the majority of recent work in kinship analysis has been devoted to
analysis of relations only within the domain of semantics. Aspects of linguistic
structure have been related t o the semantic analysis only insofar as morphemes
signal “overt semantic categories” (Lounsbury 1956: 159), or are useful in
determining the relative adequacy of equally probable solutions (Romney and
D’Andrade 1964: 18-20). Pragmatic or behavioral data have been included,
for the most part, only when some aspect of a system proved to be intractable
to componential analysis (Goodenough 1956: 213-214; Lounsbury 1956: 181-
185).
There is nothing illegitimate in the arbitrarj. delimitation of a domain of
analysis, but with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Goodenough 1951 ; Frake
1960), there seems to be little interest in carrying the analysis from the se-
mantic to the pragmatic and syntactic levels. I n agreement with Lounsbury
(1956:189), it is argued here that analysis of a kinship system is adequate
only when the relations within and between each of these domains of analysis
are specified. This paper then, is the first of a series devoted to the analysis
of kinship among the GommuKoyas of Bhadrachallam Taluq, Andhra Pradesh,
India. I t s purpose is to discuss the relation between language structure and
pragmatics. The particular relationship under discussion is that obtaining
between linguistic morphology and normative rules of respect-intimacy be-
havior within the domain of kinship behavior and linguistic reference to kins-
men.3 After a brief discussion of backgrvund data and social organization, the
morphology of kin terms is described, followed by a description of normative
behavior and a demonstration of the correlation between linguistic usage and
kinship behavior.
BACKGROUND
Geographically, culturally, and linguistically, the Koya tribe is divided
into recognized distinct subgroups. These are the Gommu Koyas, Gutta
Koyas, Dorla Koyas, and Lingu K ~ y a s All. ~ data in this paper pertain only
to the Gommu Koyas.
Numbering approximately 75,000 the Gommu Koyas inhabit the valleys
and hills of the central Godavari watershed. They are speakers of a Central
Dravidian language closely related to Gondi. The Koya habitat consists of
1428
[TYLER] Koya Language Morphology am? Kinship Behavior 1429
riverine alluvial plain, the valleys of tributary streams, and low-lying hills.
Much of this area is covered with reserve forests and a thick tangle of second-
growth scrub.
Gommu Koyas are primarily plow cultivators whose main crops are ir-
rigated wet-rice and millet. Fairly large herds of cattle and goats are also kept.
Hunting and fishing are subsidiary occupations, but produce gathered from
the jungle constitutes a considerable contribution to both diet and income.
As a result of education and Hindu influence, a few Koyas have recently en-
gaged in specialized occupations other than agriculture, but the majority are
still primarily cultivators.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
There is no over-all political institution or authority uniting the whole
tribe or even all members of any of the above subgroups of the tribe. The
largest current political unit is the samutu-a juridical unit consisting, accord-
ing to tradition, of 25 villages under a headman and two ministers.
The tribe is vertically segmented into five named exogamous patriphratries
called gootra. There are no differences in rank among these phratries and all
but two may intermarry. Associated with each phratry is a unique set of
deities which may be worshipped only by the male members of the phratry.
Aside from common “ownership” of a god group, phratries are non-corporate.
Each phratry is comprised of an indeterminate number of derivatively
exogamous patri-sibs called lootepedderi (literally, “house names”). Sib mem-
bers are usually patrilineal descendants of a named mythological sib founder.
Associated with each sib is a subset of the phratric deities. Once a year all
members of the sib living near a ritual center convene there for the annual
sib sacrifice. The sib is not a property holding corporation. I ts only corporate
aspect is as a religious group, but since not all members of the same sib convene
a t one place for the annual sib sacrifice, even this corporate aspect is limited.
The most highly corporate group within the sib is a clan comprised of
those sib members resident in a common village, tracing descent patrilineally
from a common ancestor, and participating in the rites for the clan ancestors.
This group is sometimes referred to as a kutumb (actually, “family”), and
sometimes as a branch (seeha) of the sib.6 The clan has some juridical functions
but is not a property holding group.
Villages are semi-nucleated settlements organized on an implicit moiety ba-
sis. The villages are internally segmented into named hamlets comprised of
the descendants of a hamlet founder and their cross or affinal relatives. These
hamlets tend to be residential kindreds.
Of the two villages for which data are available, family composition is
isomorphic with household composition in the majority of cases. Approxi-
mately 50% of the families are nuclear, 30% patrilineal extended, and the
remainder agnatically or affinally extended. The family is the property hold-
ing unit and the major cooperative, production, and consumption unit. It is
1430 American Anthropologist [67, 1965
also responsible for most aspects of socialization. Family authority is vested
in the father or eldest male.
Marriage is given as preferential in the following order: “real” MoBroDa,
“real” FaSiDa, classificatory MoBroDa, classificatory FaSiDa. For marriages
recorded in genealogies, “real” cross cousin marriages account for only 17%
of the total. Marriage with a classificatory cross cousin totals 60%. Polygyny
occurs, but is not very frequent. Post-marital residence is preferentially patri-
local in the strict sense of residence in the husband’s father’s house, and the
majority of cases conform to this rule. Marriage is also preferentially village
endogamous and this accounts for the majority of cases.
Descent, inheritance, and succession are strictly patrilineal. Women have
no right of inheritance or succession to office. Inheritance is equally appor-

I. KOYAKIN TERMSAND MINIMAL

TABLE RANGES

Term Range

daadaal (daado) FaFa

taataal (taato) MoFa
emma FaMo
kaako MoMo
eyyaal Fa
beriyeyyaal FaEbro, MoEsiHu
chinneyyaal FaYbro, MoYsiHu
evva Mo
beriyevva MoEsi, FaEbroWi
chinniyevva MoYsi, FaYbroWi
maamaal MoBro, FaSiHu, WiFa
PooYe FaSi, MoBroWi, WiMo
ennaal Ebro, FaEbroSo, MoEsiSo
tammuNDu Ybro, FaYbroSo, MoysiSo, SoSo
ekka Esi, FaEbroDa, MoEsiDa
eelaaDi Ysi, FaYbroDa, MoYsiDa, SoDa
baaTaal (baaTo) MoBroSo(E), FaSiSo(E), EsiHu, Wiebro*
eruNDu MoBroSo(Y), FaSiSo(Y), YsiHu, WiYbro, DaSo
enge MoBroDa(E), FaSiDa(E), EbroWi, WiEsi
eendaaDi MoBroDa(Y), FaSiDa(Y), YbroWi, WiYsi, DaDa
marri So, (x)BroSo, (o)SiSo**
mayyaaDi Da, (x)BroDa, (o)SiDa
aaNe (x)SiSo, (o)BroSo, DaHu
koDiyaaDi (x)SiDa, (O)BroDa, SoWi
muttapaal Hu
mutte Wi
poodaaDi reflexive between sisters of wife and sisters of the husband.
aavati reflexive between co-wives

* (E) indicates elder than ego; (Y)indicates younger than ego.

** (x) indicates male ego; ( 0 ) indicates female ego.
TYLER] Koya Language Morphology and Kinship Behavior 1431
tioned among surviving lineal male descendants, but succession to offices passes
to the eldest male offspring unless he is unfit. When there are no offspring,
succession passes to the deceased’s eldest surviving brother’s son.
MORPHOLOGY
Koya kinship terminology as it is used in reference consists of 23 “core”
terms, 12 compound terms and 8 homonymous terms. The core terms are
given with their minimal ranges in Table I.
Evidence from usage and texts indicates that none of these terms occurs in
reference as a free form. All occur in first person reference with an inalienable
possessive pronominal prefix: maa- (“our”) ;naa-(“my”) (Cf. Emeneau 1953).6
Additionally, a term can consist of a head plus or minus the following attrib-
utive prefixes and derivative pronominal suffixes :beri- (“large, elder”) ; chinna-
(“little, younger”) ; meena- (“own, real cross relative”) ; -aal (“mature male”) ;
-Du (“younger male”); -Di (“younger female”). To the suffixes or t o the stem
itself may be added one of four “plural” morphemes: -ooru; -ku; -n; -sk.’
Formulaically then, a Koya kinship term consists of:
Possessive Qualifier+Stem +_ Derivative fPlural
Pronoun Pronominal Suffix
suffix
maa- chinna- -aal -ooru
naa- beri- + Steml-Du f -ku
meena- -Di -n
-sk
Table I1 gives the distribution of these affixes for the whole set of term
bases.
PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR
In terms of the usual respect-intimacy continuum, the following relationships obtain
between kinsmen.
FaFa/SoSo. The relation between a FaFa and SoSo is one of marked informality.* A
young child spends much of his time in the care of his FaFa and turns to him for comfort when
he has been punished by some other relative. With increasing age, ego’s relation with his FaFa
becomes more formal. The FaFa/SoDa relation also follows this pattern.
MoFa/DaSo. In general the same relationship obtains between a MoFa and DaSo as
between FaFa and SoSo, but since a child does not usually reside in the same house as his
MoFa, interaction is less frequent. The MoFa/DaDa relation is similar.
FaMo/SoSo. A FaMo is responsible for much of early child care, but after the child is
weaned functions as a disciplinarian. As the child matures, the relationship becomes increas-
ingly reserved. This is also the pattern for FaMo/SoDa, MoMo/DaSo and MoMo/DaDa.
The latter two relationships are somewhat conditioned by residence factors.
Fa/So. Fathers and sons are far from intimate. The father as the source of family author-
ity is largely a disciplinarian who spends relatively little time in intimate contact with his son,
particularly after the child is five years old. A father expects his son to be obedient and is quick
to punish him for any failing. Consequently, a son behaves toward his father with a respect
tinged by fear. This pattern is extended to father’s brothers, but, depending on relative age, a
FaYbro may be somewhat more intimate.
Fa/Da. A father is somewhat less stem with his daughter, and may at times be quite
indulgent. Even so, a daughter still behave’s toward her father with respect. This also extends
to father’s brothers.
 TABLE
11. THEDISTRIBUTION
OF AFFIXES

Affix

Possessive Derivative Plural

Stem Pronominal Qualifier Pronominal suffix
Prefix suffix

mas- naa- chinn: -ooru

- __ -
dad-* + + +
taat- + + +
emma- + +
kaako- + + t
eyya- + +
evva- + + +
maama- +
___ - -
+
pooye- + +
enna- +
--
+
__
tammu (n)- +
ekka- + +
eelaa-
- __
+ +
baaT- + + + +
eru (n)-
- __
+
enge- + +
eendaa- + + +
marri- + +
mayyaa- + +
aaNe- +
-
+ __
koDiyaa- + +
muttap- +
mutte- + +
poodaa- +
aaviti +
-
* Morphophonemic rules are not given in this analysis.
[TYLER] Koya Language Morphology and Kinship Behavior 1433
Mo/So. During the years of infancy, a mother is a warm, supportive figure whose main
task is to gratify her son, but by the time he is weaned (approximately two years of age), this
relationship changes drastically. The mother becomes a disciplinarian meting out frequent
beatings and hard slaps. The relationship gradually develops into one of mutual reserve.
Mo/Da. This relationship parallels that of Mo/So, but as the daughter assumes more of
the household responsibilities and approaches marriageable age, the mother may become
somewhat more indulgent if her daughter is well-behaved. Even though the mother may
regard this as a rather intimate relationship, the daughter does not. She remains reserved in
the presence of her mother.
Ebro/Ybro. Elder brothers at an early age assume a disciplinary attitude toward younger
brothers and must be treated with respect. Since an elder brother assumes the position of
authority in the family on the death of the father, this relationship persists until a younger
brother can establish a separate residence. Even though there is some strain in the relation-
ship, male siblings generally continue to work together even after division of an estate.
Ebro/Ysi. Elder brothers regard themselves as “protectors” of their younger sisters and
are generally indulgent, but since the role of protector may sometimes involve frustrating the
wishes of a younger sister, the relation from her point of view is one of respect.
Esi/Younger siblings. Elder sisters are entrusted with the care of younger siblings and in
general harrass them. They are the source of friction between younger siblings and their
parents. Since the elder sister has the power of disciplinarian as a part of her role, younger
siblings regard her with some respect.
MoBro/SiSo. A SiSo must always behave respectfully toward his MoBro, and the MoBro
behaves toward him with reserve. Both attempt to avoid too close or frequent association, and
interaction between them tends to be almost formally ritualized. I n the rather infrequent cases
of uxorilocal residence, open conflict between these two frequently occurs.
MoBro/SiDa. Although similar to the MoBro/SiSo relationship, this relation is some-
what less formal. The SiDa, when married to MoBroSo, resides in the house of the MoBro and
is under his authority. There is relatively little interaction between SiDa and MoBro. The
MoBro must be treated with the same respect as a father. Once she has given birth to a
male child, the MoBro may treat her with some intimacy, but the SiDa cannot reciprocate.
FaSi/BroSo. The WiMo or FaSi is a person to be avoided. The avoidance is not particu-
larly stringent, but a BroSo attempts to avoid any situation that would put him in close con.
tact with his WiMo. When the FaSi is still unmarried and living in her brother’s house, the
avoidance does not pertain. The relationship tends to parallel that of Mo/So, or if the FaSi is
quite young, that of Esi/Ybro.
FaSi/BroDa. The FaSi or HuMo is the archetypical scourge, and must be treated with
extreme deference. As a young female member of the household the BroDa is directly under
the authority of the HuMo. She is given all the more distasteful household chores and her
performance is under constant critical surveillance. Until her status has been legitimized by
the birth of a male child, the relation is very strained. After the birth of a male child, the
relation eases and may sometimes become quite intimate. Prior to marriage, the FaSi/BroDa
relationship may be rather intimate.
MoBroSo(E)/FaSiSo(Y). These two stand in a joking relation which is somewhat tem-
pered by the fact that the elder male must be treated with respect on certain occasions. If the
age differential is not too great, these two, in their youth may be close friends.
MoBroSo(E)/FaSiDa(Y). This relationship parallels that of the above except that it is
much freer. Since these two stand in the preferred marriage relation, pre-marital behavior is
characterized by a wide latitude of permissible behavior including sexual intercourse.
MoBroDa(E)/FaSiSo(Y). Because she is elder, an elder MoBroDa falls into the same
category as other elder females, but she is also a cross cousin with whom it is possible to be
intimate. Further, as a newly married bride in a strange household, she frequently turns to her
husband’s younger brother as a confidant. Sexual relations between a husband’s younger
brother and an elder brother’s wife are permissible, but may lead to trouble. On the death of
an elder brother, the younger brother has the right, but not the obligation, to many his de-
ceased elder brother’s wife. Should he decide not to marry her, he and his other male parallel
relatives have the obligation of arranging another marriage for her if she desires to remarry.
The junior levirate occurs very infrequently.
MoBroDa(E)/FaSiDa(Y). Traditionally, there should be an intimate and friendly rela-
tion between these relatives, including joking behavior, but this is frequently not the case.
1434 American Anthropologist [67, 1965
Somewhat like an elder sister, the elder female is quick to exploit the younger and this may
lead to rather strained behavior.
Hu/Wi. Husbands and wives are not particularly close. A husband demands constant
respect from his wife and expects her to be unquestioningly obedient. If she is not, he is likely
to abandon her or throw her out of the house. In the early years of marriage, intimacy between
the two is restrained by the presence of the husband’s parents. A husband should never dem-
onstrate affection for his wife in front of his parents or in public.
Co-Wives. Relations between co-wives are considered to be potentially conflictful unless
they are sisters. I t is for this reason that sororal polygyny is the preferred form of polygynous
marriage. Otherwise, the first wife, jealous of the new wife’s sexual monopoly, attempts to
revenge herself by assigning the harder household tasks to the new wife. She constantly heckles
the new wife who responds with taunts about the other’s lack of sex appeal. Plural marriage is
considered to be the privilege of those who can afford to maintain separate establishments for
the two wives if they fail to get along with one another.
The following table shows the distribution of respect-intimacy rules for the set of kins-
men.
TABLE111. THEDISTRIBUTION
OF RESPECT-INTIMACY
RULES

Patterned Behavior Included Kin

Respect FaFa, MoFa, Fa, FaEbro,

FaYbro, MoBro, MoBroSo(E)

Reserve Mo, MoEsi, MoYsi, MoMo,

FaMo, FaSi, So, SiSo, Esi
~~ ~

Informal FaFa, MoFa, MoBroSo(E)*

Intimate Ybro, Ysi, MoBroSo(Y),

MoBroDa(E), MoBroDa(Y),
SiDa, SoSo, SoDa, DaDa, DaSo

* The overlap here reflects the difference in behavior between ego as a child and eRo as a ma-
ture person. See p. 1433.
All of these are normative relationships, and, of course, vary considerably as a result of
personal and other factors. One of the factors which alters the relations with crosa relatives is
whether or not they are memo-relatives.In general meena- denotes a previous genealogical
connection between ego and his affines, e.g., ego’s WiFa is a “real” MoBro. When this genea-
logical connection obtains, the relations with elder affines is considerably eased. One need not,
for example, avoid a real FaSi. Another important factor is residence in the same village. This
too has the effect of easing the relation between cross relatives. Except for certain ceremonial
occasions, the almost ritualized behavior occurring between cross relatives is not expected
when they reside in the same village.

BEHAVIOR AND LINGUISTIC MORPHOLOGY

These patterns of behavior correlate with features of linguistic usage. The
distribution of derivative pronominal suffixes provides an initial key to this
correlation.
Within this domain of referential kin terms, the derivative suffix -aal occurs
with terms for all males older than ego. These are people toward whom ego
behaves with respect. The only exceptions to this are those terms having a
variant form in final -0 (e.g., daadaal, daado). This occurs with FaFa, MoFa,
TYLER] Koya Language Morphology and Kinship Behavior 1435
and MoBroSo(E). Final -0 occurs in reference to FaFa and h$oFa only in the
usage of younger children. The patterning for MoBroSo(E) is somewhat more
complex. The distribution seems to be distorted by conflict between the prin-
ciple of respect for elder males and the principle of a joking relation between
cross cousins. It is not entirely certain, but the final -0 seems to be used in
situations where joking is permissible, whereas in situations requiring more
formal behavior, the form in -aal is used.
The suffix -Du occurs with terms for males younger than ego, and with
whom he stands in a relation of intimacy or lack of restraint. The distribution
of -Di follows this pattern, occuring with terms for all females younger than
ego with whom his relation is intimate.
Terms having a 4 pronominal suffix refer to all females older than ego and
own son and SiSo. These are all people with whom the relation is marked by
mutual reserve or avoidance. The exception is EbroWi toward whom ego
stands in a joking relationship. The contradiction here seems to parallel that
of MoBroSo(E).
The distribution of plural morphemes also patterns in this way. The plural
morpheme -ooru occurs with terms for males older than ego; -sk occurs with
terms for males and females younger than ego except So and SiSo; -n occurs
with terms for all females older than ego; and -ku distributes with terms for
SiSo and So.
Usage of possessive pronouns in first person reference parallels this dis-
tribution. The possessive maa- is used for all males older than ego and naa-
is used for all persons younger than ego except So and SiSo. For females older
than ego and for So and SiSo both naa- and maa- are used depending on
whether the situation is formal and public or informal and p r i ~ a t e . ~
Table I V illustrates the relationship between patterned behavior and
linguistic usage.
The only point in which this display errs is in classing MoBroDa(E) in
the “reserve” category when the relationship is actually intimate. Otherwise,
the correlation between linguistic usage and normative behavior given above
is perfect.

VARIATIONS
The foregoing is somewhat over-systematized. Variations can and do
occur, and aside from those variations which can be correlated with dialectical
and acculturational factors, there are some alternate terms and morphological
patterns in both reference and address which depart from the ideal structure.
Two alternate terms for mother and father occur with some frequency.
One’s father can be referred to either as ayya- or tappe, and one’s mother can
be referred t o either as evva- or talluru. Tappe and talluru are regarded as
“sweet” terms, and indicate a more intimate relation. The situational distribu-
tion for tappe is not certain, but may be largely limited to usage within the
family. Significantly, it takes the plural morpheme -n. Except when referring
to goddesses, talluru is never used in any formal or ceremonial situation. As
1436 -4mericau -4izihropologisl [67, 1965
TABLE
IV. THE RELATIONBETWEEN PATTERNED
BEHAVIOR
AND LINGUISTIC
USAGE
-~ -
____--
Linguistic Usage
Patterned Includrd Kin
Behavior Possessive Pronominal Plural
Prefix suffix suffix

FaFa, MoFa,
Fa, FaEbro,
Respect FaYbro, maa- -aal -ooru
MoBro
MoBroSo(E)
.
..-

Mo, MoEsi
MoYsi, MoMo,
Reserve FaMo, FaSi, maa-
MoBroDa(E), naa- -# -n, -ku
So, SiSo,
Esi

FaFa, MoFa,
Informal MoBroSo(E) naa- -0 -z
-~

MoBroSo(Y),
Ybro, Ysi,
MoBroDa(E)
Intimate SiDa, SoSo, naa- -Du, -Di -sk
SoDa, DaDa,
DaSo

might be expected, the plural morpheme occurring with talluru is -sk. A much
less frequently recorded variation was the occurrence of the plural morpheme
-sk with terms for other elder females. Further, these alternations in plurals
somewhat disturb the distribution of possessives. Even though naa- is the
expected possessive when -sk occurs, in this instance maa- occurs instead. As
this occurred very infrequently, I was never able to establish a situational
context for the alternation.
Functionally, these variations seem to be related to contradictions, incon-
sistencies, or “play” in the roles of these relatives. Fathers, mothers, and other
elder female relatives, e.g., are not always merely disciplinarians-their roles
also entail nurturant and succoring behavior. Similarly a FaSi is not always a
mother-in-law, and thus need not be avoided.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
As Greenberg (1954:4) has pointed out, any attempt to connect linguistic
with non-linguistic phenomena entails specification of three kinds of questions:
TYLER] Koya Language Morphology and Kivtship Behavior 1437
“(1) What kinds of linguistic facts are being adduced in evidence? (2) With
what other phenomena is a connection being made? (3) What is the nature of
this connection?” Thus, in terms of Greenberg’s criteria, this article has been
concerned with the facts of linguistic morphology; with social behavior per-
taining to patterns of respect, intimacy, etc.; and asserts that the connection
is one of correlation.
This analysis does not, of course, exhaust the domain of normative be-
havior. Marriage rules, e.g., correlate better with a semantic analysis. On the
other hand, it can be demonstrated that the structure of authority relations
correlates with morphology (Cf. Brown and Gilman 1954). There is no simple,
single, unitary relationship. Different kinds of behavior correlate with differ-
ent analytic domains.
Since all Dravidian systems agree in a pattern (though different in detail
from Koya) of marking respect-intimacy in the morphology, it might be argued
that this is merely a feature of classical “agglutinative” languages. This,
however, does not seem to be the case, for Chinese employs a technique sim-
ilar to that of the Dravidian group (Fei 1939:288-296), and even though
similar relations between morphology and behavior may not occur in many
other societies, its presence in Chinese suggests some kind of causal factor.
Data from other societies indicate that respect-intimacy is correlated
not with morphology, but with contrasting sets of alternate terms. Such, e.g.,
is the case for Subanun (Frake 1960), American (Schneider and Homans 1955),
Javanese (Koentjaraningrat 1957), German (Naroll 195S), and Tagalog
(Conklin 1951). Japanese, using both morphology and alternate sets of terms
(Beardsley, Hall, and Ward 1959: 246; Smith 1962), appears to be intermediate
between the Dravidian and these systems.
Since all cases of marking respect-intimacy in alternate sets of terms occur
with what have been characterized as Eskimo or Hawaiian terminologies and
in societies which may roughly be classified as bilateral, this suggests the hy-
pothesis that multiple terminological systems may be correlated with bilateral
social organization.1° This probably reflects the multiple types of possible re-
lationship in a “loosely” kin integrated society where the allocations of roles
cannot be consistently structured within a single taxonomic system. All cases
adduced here for marking respect-intimacy in the morphology occur in Dakota-
Iroquois systems and in societies with some tendency to lineage organization.
This would seem to indicate that societies with more “rigidly” defined kinship
institutions above the level of kindred and family have a more consistent sys-
tem of role allocation and, thus, less variance in kin taxonomy.“
It can be justifiably argued that the polarization of systems using mor-
phology vs. systems using alternate sets of terms is somewhat overdrawn.
Probably no system is totally free of alternate forms (either lexical or mor-
phological), and there may even be systems in which larger syntactical con-
structions are criterial.12
This overlap between morphology and alternate terms in the same system
is reflected in the following American English series: father, dad, daddy, pa,
1438 American Anthropologist [67, 1965
pop, poppa, mother, mom, ma, momma, mommy, aunt, auntie (aunty),
uncle, unk, unkie (unky).13 Not only are there alternate lexemes which pre-
sumably correlate with different levels of respect-intimacy or formality-
informality, there is also a “diminutivizing” morpheme -y (e.g., momma,
mommy). All forms in final -y seem to be limited in reference to the usage of
children-somewhat paralleling the usage of -0 in Koya. Further, the mor-
pheme -y occurs in reference only with terms for relatives older than ego.
Thus, it can be demonstrated that American English makes use of morphology
in signalling differences in respect-intimacy distributions. Consequently,
whether the typological distinction between systems using morphology and
systems using alternate sets of lexemes will be any more useful than the earlier
linguistic typologies of agglutinating and analytic languages is somewhat
dubious. This, however, should not obscure the fact that one of the primary
functions of these morphemes and/or alternate lexemes is to classify kin in
terms of relative degrees of respect-intimacy. The significant questions, both
for single system analysis and for comparative purposes are: what kin terms
may be replaced by alternate lexemes or inflected with bound or alternating
morphemes, and what does this signify? Is, for example, the whole set of
terms replaced by an alternate set, or are only a few replaced? Do alternate
terms or terms with affixed morphemes denote the same kin types as the terms
with which they alternate? Do alternate terms imply the same set of roles
as the terms with which they alternate? What are the social contexts within
which alternation may occur?
These comments indicate that the hypothesis on p. 1437 might be reformu-
lated a t a different level as follows: kin types whose role systems are charac-
terized by a high degree of inconsistency will have a higher frequency of
alternate lexemes or morphemes indicating degrees of respect-intimacy than
those kin types whose role systems are more consistent. I n relation to the
taxonomic function of lexemes this implies that the role attributes of some
kin types are irreconcilable with a single taxonomic slot, even though the two
alternating forms may denote the same range of kin types. This in turn
would indicate that a componential analysis of lexemes alone would be an
inadequate semantic statement if it treated daddy and dad or tappe and
eyyaal as simple synonyms (Cf. Wallace and Atkins 1960: 67-68).
Although further investigation of these hypotheses is outside the domain
of this paper, these data suggest that analysis of the relations between language
structure and pragmatics is productive not only for the explication of par-
ticular systems, but may be equally useful in comparative studies.
NOTES
Data for this article are derived from interview schedules, census schedules, genealogies,
linguistic texts, and participant observation. Field work was carried out in India from October,
1962, through July, 1963. Field research was supported by a Foreign Area Training Fellowship
granted by the Ford Foundation.This paper has benefitted from comments and criticisms by A. R.
Beals and Gene Hammel.
* AsLounsbury notes, this formulationis derived from Morris (1938).
TYLER] Koya Language Morphology and Kinship Behavior 1439
* Articles dealing with other aspects of Koya kinship are in preparation.
‘The transcription is roughly phonemic. Vowel length is marked Kith double vowels and
retroflexion is indicate$ by upper case letters. With few exceptions retroflex consonants only occur
medially. All other cases of upper case initial consonants in foreign words have their usual English
connotation. The plural suffix -n is a velarized nasal.
The overlap here is only partial. seeka does not refer to individual families unless a clan is
represented in a village only by one family.
6 Evidence for the inalienability of these possessives is, in part, derived from responses to in-
terview questions similar to the following: Q: miikuu raamayyakii, baata sambandam minna?
(Between you and raamayya, what relationship is there?) A: maa ennaal. (My elder brother). Or-
Q: sambandam itku, ooniki baata maaTa vaaTitiiri? (If [you say there is] relationship, what word
will you put [use]for him?) A: maa ennaal. (My elder brother).
On purely linguistic grounds -sk is limited entirely to kin terms, names of some goddesses,
and the word for month: -n contrasts with -ku only in a small list class of bases. Elsewhere -nis a
simple conditioned variant of -ku. -ooru occurs only with some kin terms, names for high status
occupations, and names of sibs and phratries.
* The specific content of respect, intimacy, reserve, and informality is too lengthy for this
paper. It is given in detail in Tyler 1964: 120-200.
* The use of other possessives is conditioned by the relative status of participants in a linguis-
tic exchange. This factor is outside this frame of reference.
lo Levi-Strauss (1953: 1-10) has, if I understand him, suggested something similar in his
classification of terminologies as %ubjective” with few terms, and “objective” with numerous
terms.
Part of this is implicit in other literature (e.g., Murdock 1960:3, 6-13; Nadel 1957:63-97).
l* It could be argued that the function of possessive pronouns in Dravidian languages is syn-
tactical rather than morphological (Cf. Emeneau 1953: 345-346), but for purposes of simplicity I
have chosen to treat them here simply as morphological constituents of terms.
1) While it is true that historically, father and papa are probably derived from a single I E

term (Cf. Skt. pitri-) this is irrelevant to their current function.

R E F E R E N C E S CITED
BEABDSLEY, R. K., J. W. HALL,and R. E. WARD
1959 Village Japan. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
BROWN,ROGER,and A. GILMAN
1954 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Style in language, T. A. Sebeok, ed. Cam-
bridge Mass., Technology Press of M.I.T., New York, John Wiley.
CONKLIN, H. C.
1951 Co-existing sets of relationship terms among the Tanay Tagalog. Unpublished MS.
EYENEAU, M. B.
1953 Dravidian kinship Terms. Language 29: 339-353.
FEI, H. T.
1939 Peasant life in China. New York, Dutton.
FRAKE,C. 0.
1960 The Eastern Subanun of Mindanao. In Social structure in Southeast Asia, G. P.
Murdock, ed. Chicago, Quadrangle Books.
GOODENOUGH, W. H.
1951 Property, kin and community on Truk. New Haven, Yale University Press.
1956 Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language 32: 195-216.
GBEENBERG, J. H.
1954 Concerning inferences from linguistic to nonlinguistic data. I n Language and cul-
ture, H. Hoijer, ed. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
KOENTJARANINGRAT, R. M.
1957 A preliminary description of the Javanese kinship system. New Haven, Yale Uni-
versity Press.
1440 A merican A itthropologist [67, 19651
LEVI-STRAUSS, C., et. al. (eds.)
1953 Results of a conference of Anthropologists and Linguists. Memoir of the Inter-
national Journal of American Linguistics No. 8 Indiana.
LOUNSBURY, F. G.
1956 A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32: 158-194.
MORRIS,C. W.
1938 Foundations of the theory of signs, In International encyclopedia of Unified Science,
Vol. I, No. 2, Chicago University of Chicago Press.
MURDOCK, G. P.
1960 Cognatic forms of social organization. In Social structure in Southeast Asia, G. P.
Murdock, ed. Chicago, Quadrangle Books.
NADEL,S. F.
1957 The theory of social structure. Glencoe, The Free Press.
NAROLL,R.
1958 German kinship terms. American Anthropologist 60:750-755.
ROMNEY, A. K., and R. D’ANDBADE
1964 Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. In Transcultural studies in cognition,
Special Publication American Anthropologist 66: 146-1 70.
SCHNEIDER, D. M., and G. C. HOMANS.
1955’ Kinship terminology and the American kinship system. American Anthropologist
58: 1194-1208.
SMITH,R. J.
1962 Stability in Japanese kinship terminology: the historical evidence. I n Japanese cul-
ture, R. J. Smith and R. K. Beardsley, eds. Viking Fund Publications in Anthro-
pology, No. 94.
S. A.
TYLER,
1964 Koya kinship: the relation between rules and behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Stanford University.
A. F. C., and J. ATKINS
WALLACE,
1960 The meaning of kinship terms. American .4nthropologist 62 :58-80.