Anthropologists concerned with formal semantic analysis have overwhelmingly accepted the notion that the referential universe of kinship terms is genealogically constrained, while those concerned with a more discursive and symbolic approach have been equally consistent in rejecting that constraint. Formal analysts have typically defended their view by citing (semantic) psychological arguments, i.e., ones focusing on how the mental states and cognitive endowments of speaker/hearers map linguistic forms to real-world referents. For formalists, the facts and processes of meaning motivate accepting the genealogical constraint. Other uses are commonly conceived as metaphoric extensions from this (semantically) "proper" class of kin-term referents. Alternatively, symbolists have invoked social significance and relevance within systems of shared belief as the appropriate determinants of meaning. It is claimed that inasmuch as kinship terms are regularly and relevantly used to refer to nongenealogically related i...