Please refer the following questions asked elsewhere on this site:

I am a native Hindi speaker; Hindi has a plethora of terms referring to relationships. To take a trivial example, the term uncle may refer to father's elder brother, father's younger brother, mother's brothers, father's sister's husband, mother's sister's husband, all of which have specific addresses in Hindi.

I discussed the same with one of my teachers. She had the opinion that the development of language mirrors the cultural moorings of the society that uses the language. Now, since all of the above relationships have distinct status and reverence in the Hindi speaking society, that calls for different addresses. That may well not be the case in English speaking societies.

Is that correct? What other linguistic reasons may account for such a dearth of vocabulary in English in this area?

  • 10
    One might just as easily say that the fact that "uncle" is applicable to all those different family members is indicative of an inclusive tendency in the culture, where blood doesn't pose an obstacle to true relation, and an uncle by marriage is no less an uncle than your mother's brother. (Note that I don't believe that the phenomenon is indicative of the value English-speakers put on relationships at all; this is just to say that one could argue it either way.)
    – user13141
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 14:31
  • 1
    Not worth an answer, but Australian Aboriginal English has a few additional kin terms.
    – Golden Cuy
    Commented Jun 25, 2017 at 5:11
  • my brother's wife AKA my sister-in-law and my brother-in-law
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 3, 2019 at 21:24
  • @lambie I guess my question is about a word that identifies unambiguously. My brother's wife is my sister-in-law, but so is my wife's sister; and my wife's brother's wife. How do you know what the relationship is? Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 4:50
  • @VaibhavGarg You distinguish various types of same-named in-laws just like you do any actual blood relatives that share the same kinship term: by carefully describing the exact relationship, like all eight possible first cousin types being your father’s brother’s son vs your father’s brother’s daughter vs your father’s sister’s son vs your father’s sister’s daughter vs your mother’s brother’s son vs your mother’s brother’s daughter vs your mother’s sister’s son vs your mother’s sister’s daughter.
    – tchrist
    Commented Sep 10, 2023 at 22:35

8 Answers 8


You have noticed a very peculiar aspect of English vocabulary. As rich as it is in comparison to many other languages, due to its almost creole history, it really is impoverished in comparison to other languages in kinship terms.

But 'why' is always a difficult question, especially when mixed with cultural questions. There are the difficulties with Sapir-Whorf type explanations: both language restricting thought on one hand and the number of Eskimo words for snow on the other.

Does the lack of kinship terms reflect the cultural lack of warmth and caring for relatives among English speakers, that is not caring leads to the loss of the words (which etymologically do exist in the ancestor languages), or did the arbitrary lack of kinship terms contribute to the crumbling of English family values?

Any direction sounds much too tendentious, too judgmental, and requires too much unjustified and biased assumptions to choose.

The comparative lack of kinship terms does ask for an explanation but one backed up by linguistic and anthropological and comparative research. The only source that comes to mind is Levi-Strauss's 'The Elementary Structures of Kinship.' (primarily anthropological but as a by product a number of examples of kinship term systems.

English isn't alone in having relatively few kinship terms. Some other European languages have only a few extra (French, German) and some languages really only have names for their clan and generation (anybody of one's biological parents' generation might be called something like 'uncle' or 'aunt', even one's birth parents).

Having no definite answer to your question, I can only say beware of making cultural inferences based on restrictions to languages. Some languages have grammatical gender and others don't, but that doesn't mean the ones without can't recognize the sex of other people.

  • 7
    I suspect that the root here is cultural - just as we don't have more words for kinship, we don't have laws or mores governing kin-relations for which we don't have words; further, a lot of our terminology derives from (canon) legal terminology: -in-law derives from canon law deeming that relationship to be equivalent to the natural (e.g. ones brother-in-law is considered to be the same kind of relation as ones brother). This suggests that we have all the terms we need to cover what we're doing culturally.
    – Marcin
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 14:39
  • 4
    @Marcin: Yes, and really as far as communicating an idea goes, there's no difference between uncle and parent's brother. And though English doesn't have a specific single word for it, you still can talk about the specific concept maternal brother, or maternal brother's/paternal sister's children ('cross-cousin') or second-cousin once removed. Having a single word might show a high frequency cultural repetition, or one might get away with 'my mom's brother' just fine without any indication that that is a concept that is very common or not common.
    – Mitch
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 15:58
  • 3
    Great points. A man speaking about his "sister-in-law" could be referring to his brother's wife or his wife's sister. Since English normally refers to these relationships as "sister-in-law" without further clarification, that could indicate that English speakers, as a society, see these relationships as substantially socially equivalent. In a more clan-based society (e.g. with strict agnatic lineages and patriarchs), these "sisters-in-law" could fall under separate areas of kinship and thus be deemed significant enough to differentiate in common speech. Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 0:53
  • But Mitch, you didn't even answer the question...
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 3, 2019 at 21:26

It's true. English does not really have a very complete kinship system. But that's culture, not language. We can describe any relationship we need to; but we haven't burdened ourselves with special words for distant relations.

  • 8
    Burdened? That's debatable.
    – Ed Guiness
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 9:05
  • 3
    Are father's brother and mother's brother really "distant relations" in English culture? This is… very odd to me. (At any rate, even if that's true, it would be hard to explain the absence of different words for "younger brother" and "older brother" by saying that one's brother is a distant relation.) Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 14:41
  • 4
    @onomatomaniak: The explanation given by John Lawler is "we haven't burdened ourselves with special words for distant relations". I am just pointing out that this explanation doesn't hold. If you have a different explanation feel free to post it; I'm just pointing out that this explanation does not apply here. Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 15:22
  • 10
    Rather than "special words for distant relations", I think a better explanation would be "we haven't burdened ourselves with different words for every possible relationship". In practical terms, I think it's a lot easier to say "my younger brother", "my older brother", "my younger sister", "my older sister", "my father's older brother", "my mother's father's brother", etc, than to have to learn and remember a different word for every such possible relationship. I, like most Americans, I think, have enough trouble remembering just what "second cousin twice-removed" means.
    – Jay
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 16:04
  • 3
    Plus, I did link to the Wikipedia article, which is accurate, if not comprehensive. These are ethnolinguistic facts; ask any anthropologist. English uses the Western model; from the article: "The Western model of a nuclear family consists of a couple and its children. The nuclear family is ego-centered and impermanent, while descent groups are permanent (lasting beyond the lifespans of individual constituents) and reckoned according to a single ancestor" Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 18:14

According to Wiktionary's entry for uncle, there were distinct terms for maternal and paternal uncles as recently as Middle English. This is certainly consistent with the hypothesis that some cultural change in the early modern era made English speakers less concerned with concise, one-word expressions for specific relationships.

  • That's quite interesting and it makes me wonder if there used to be more, and more specific, kinship terms in Old and Middle English.
    – Bjorn
    Commented Dec 15, 2011 at 15:05

Addendum: a generative list of standard English kinship terms

Single words:

mother, father, sister, brother, sibling, husband, wife, spouse, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, cousin

Note: sibling, spouse, cousin don't have gender. All others do.

An Oxford Words blog post provides some archaic and obscure terms like aiel or nift, but it is not advisable to use these except in specialist usage, as among cultural anthropologists.


grand-, great-, -in-law, step-, half-

Note: - great can be used as many times as necessary, grand only once (thus, great-grandauntor great-great-aunt and never grand-grandaunt). - none of these terms gives the gender of the intermediate relation. e.g. A sister-in-law could be your brother's wife or could be your spouse's sister; a half-brother might share either a mother or a father with you.


nth cousin x times removed

Explained entirely at Rule for naming distant relatives

That's it. There is no maternal vs paternal aunt/uncle, no first, second third son or daughter, no non-gendered aunt/uncle. If it ain't here or ain't derivable from here, it ain't English.

Public domain chart by Matt Leidholm:

Chart showing how to express cousin relations in terms of degrees and removals

  • There's also parent and single-parent which are also gender free.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 16, 2017 at 19:56
  • Oxford Dictionaries has a blog post about obscure kinship terms. Note how the fact the particular ones are obscure and that they don't give obscure names for some near relatives that other languages have common terms for shows how lacking English is (relatively).
    – Mitch
    Commented Jun 26, 2017 at 13:16
  • 1
    The link (now called "lexico") no longer takes the reader to the article.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 14, 2019 at 6:02

I think the reason for the paucity or abundance of kinship terms in a language is related to the family system that has historically prevailed in places where the language is spoken. In particular, Englishmen and Western Europeans in general have at least since the late Middle Ages tended towards family systems where the nuclear family (husband+wife+children) is the organizing unit of society. In such family systems, more distant kin (say, uncles and aunts and their children) are not necessarily socially or in economic terms more close to a given nuclear family than are unrelated neighbors, business partners, friends, etc. When there's not necessarily that much social interaction between more distant relatives, there's little need for intricate kinship terms.

In contrast, many other societies, such as those of South Asia, have traditionally been organized around the extended family both socially (e.g., marriages are often between kin) and financially, giving rise to lots of kinship terms so that each person's status within the extended family can be easily discerned.

Emmanuel Todd's book "Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems" presents a detailed theory of relations between family systems and social and political ideologies around the world.


I find no plausibility in the argument that there's some cross-language principle that different status and reverence calls for different addresses. Absent any evidence or argument why this should be a cross-language principle, it may just be that this is so in Hindi but not in English.

  • 3
    Well, there's empirical fact: most languages of India, even those not from the same language family (i.e., both Indo-European and Dravidian languages) have different words for mother's brother versus father's brother. I seem to dimly recall that the same is true of many languages of Africa. This does suggest that the existence of separate words is correlated with kinship patterns in that culture. Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 19:04

It is surely true that a culture's mores and environment shape its language. To take a trivial example, I wouldn't be surprised if a society that had never seen an ocean and was not in contact with any other society that had would have no word for "ocean". But how far to go with this is highly debateable.

So sure, in English my father's brother and my mother's brother are both called my "uncle". My sister's husband and my wife's brother are both called my "brother-in-law". Etc. Does this lack of special words mean that we care less about family than cultures that have different words for each? Or conversely, I suppose, that we are less stratified and see many such relationships as socially equivalent? It's an interesting speculation, but without further evidence I wouldn't leap to conclusions. After all, if I want to distinguish my father's brother from my mother's brother, I can say "my father's brother" and "my mother's brother". It's not like we're unfamiliar with the concept.

There are theories that language shapes one's thinking. Like in the classic novel "1984", there's a discussion of how a tyranical government limited people's thinking by controlling the language, for example, defining the word "free" to mean only the absence of something, as in "this lawn is free of weeds", so that the idea of political freedom would be "unthinkable". An interesting idea, but would it actually work that way? After all, people throughout history have invented words to express a new idea. Like, when Demosthenes came up with the idea of an atom, that was apparently a new idea that no one had ever thought of before, so there where no words for it in the language. So he invented one, "atom". (If it wasn't Demosthenes who invented the word, feel free to correct me.) Did the lack of an existing word for the idea make it more difficult to think of the concept? Obviously it didn't stop him. Maybe it meant that it took a particularly creative person to think of it, that other geniuses were blocked by lack of a word. Such a thing is very hard to prove one way or the other. Especially given that it's easily proveable that it's not an absolute, we're left trying to prove whether it has any effect, and if so, how much.

** Further thought 6 years later **

I just got an upvote on this which brought this post back to my attention, and re-reading it I had an additional thought.

How do we name things? In this context I mean, when there are several similar things in the world, do we give each one a distinct name, or do we have a general word for the category as a whole and then use adjectives to specify which we mean.

For example, in English we have many words for different types of motor vehicle: car, truck, motorcycle, etc. People rarely say "motor vehicle", it's one of those words people resort to when they're struggling to find a general word for the category. More often we say "cars and trucks".

On the other hand, we have the general term "telephone", and when you want to be more specific you have to say "cell phone" or "wall phone" (or occasionally some other specialized kind of phone, "satellite phone" or whatever).

Using a general term with adjectives is more flexible. It makes it easy to extend the class and for people to recognize that you're talking about a member of the class even if they don't recognize the specific example. Like if you told me you had a "fwacbar phone", I wouldn't know exactly what that is but I'd at least instantly understand that it was some kind of phone.

Having specific words for each example can make language more concise. If we had to give a long description every time we wanted to refer to something, that could get very cumbersome. Like in the family member example, "my father's brother" isn't long enough to be tedious or confusing. But if you start saying, "my father's mother's sister's son's daughter", well that's just getting impractical.

But having specific words for every instance can make a lot of words to remember, which also can be cumbersome. I suppose if you use them every day you just get used to them. But in English we have many terms for relationships that most English speakers find confusing and difficult to remember exactly what they mean. Who, exactly, is my "second cousin twice removed"? Personally I don't remember and I know many other English speakers don't either.

  • 1
    " if I want to distinguish my father's brother from my mother's brother, I can say "my father's brother" and "my mother's brother". The question is not "If". Had there been different words, they would have been implicitly identified. Commented Dec 15, 2011 at 2:54
  • 2
    What I was trying to say was that in English you can say "uncle" and leave unspecified exactly which path on the family tree you are referring to, or you can say "my father's brother" and be more specific. Does Hindi have no words that apply generally? For example, in English people often say things like, "My grandparents were all born in Europe", meaning all four of them. In Hindi would you have to list the four?
    – Jay
    Commented Dec 15, 2011 at 14:44
  • Yes, to the best of my understanding, there aren't. You have to list all four. There isn't a term to specify even the pair of one type. Same for uncles. Commented Dec 16, 2011 at 10:10
  • In English we can add specificity to a relationship word if needed (which isn't often). It sounds then like Hindi is forced to excessive verbosity by not having words for the more general relationship concept.
    – Rob K
    Commented Jun 14, 2017 at 20:54
  • @rob it is the part where you say -it isn't often- is where the difference is. I can't imagine a cultural situation where the general term would be more pertinent. Commented Jun 17, 2017 at 0:48

I read in an article about Chinese kinship terms that implied the following two reasons for the abundance of specific terms:

  1. Traditionally people prefer living with or near their families and thus family members encounter each other frequently (possibly even on a daily basis).

  2. A distinction is made between consanguineal and affinal relations, which increases the number of terms.

Perhaps these reasons apply to Hindi-speakers in India as well?

I can't say whether the above really holds true and whether all societies that meet the above two criteria also possess a large collection of specific kinship terms but perhaps they could go some way in explaining the relative lack of specific terms in the English language.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.