沖縄の親族関係語彙

抄録

The purpose of this essay is to describe and analyze different usages of Okinawan kinship terminology. I do this on the assumption 1) that kinship terms are polysemic ; 2) that different meanings of a term must be defined in relation to various contexts in which the terms occur ; 3) that terminological analysis must be "componential" : i. e., terms must be defined and analyzed not independently, but in relation to other terms which compose a single system ; 4) that different meanings of terms may constitute plural systems of terminological usages ; and 5) that these systems, though utilizing morphologically identical terms, may be structurally distinct. The notion of polysemy and its theoretical framework is best explained in the first three chapters of Scheffler and Lounsbury's 1971 monograph. Methodologically, I followed the analytical procedures developed by Goodenough (1967 and 1968) , particularly in carrying out the analysis of genealogical usages. The terminological data were obtained between August 1969 and December 1970 in an argicultural village in Motobu County, Okinawa, Japan. The paper demonstrates the following : 1) Depending upon the kind of persons (kin vs, non-kin) involved, and upon the manner of identification (reference vs, address) , I could identify four distinct terminological systems : Reference terminology pertaining to kin (System Ia) , Address terminology pertaining to kin (System Ib) , Address terminology applicable to non-kin (System II) , and Sociocentric terminology in which all the members of the community are referentially identified (System III) . The terms in each system occur in distinct synactic contexts. 2) The terminological analysis reveals that each system, despite the utilization of morphologically identical terms in more than one system, is structurally distinct from the other systems in that the configuration of classificatory principles are unique in each system. 3) System Ia is egocentric, bilaterally symmetrical, and bounded. Since the terms for the kin types of the system are generationally and lineally exactly differentiated, the system as a whole takes the form of several concentric circles with the ego at the center. "Step-kin" are terminologically equated with the consanguineal kin to whom they are married, but "m laws" are not. 4) The terms of System lb apply to the same kind of kin as System la. The system is,. therefore, bounded. It is also egocentric and bilaterally symmetrical. However, the system divides people into two major groups : those who are older than ego, and the others. The first group is addressed with kinship terms, and the second group by the addressee's personal name without honorific suffix. Kinship terms for the first group are "classificatory" in that a few primary terms are "extended" to identify more distantly related kin by neutralizing the principle of lineality. Thus, the system as a whole tends to be generational. In contrast to, System la consanguineal kin "step-kin" and "in-laws" are terminologically undifferentiated in this system. 5) System II divides non-kin into "leaders" and the others. The latter consists of those senior to ego who are addressed with so-called kin terms, and the rest who are addressed with their personal names. "Kin" terms utilized in this system are those which denote (in System la) parent's father, parent's mother, elder brother, and elder sister. They specifically do not include any term relating to the parent-child relationship, the basic unit of authority transmission in this society. In choosing among various forms of terms, ego can, in this system, consciously or unconsciously express, or manipulate human relationships around him.