Does kinship terminology provide evidence for or against universal grammar?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):381 - 382 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Jones introduces an intricate machinery of kin classification that overcomes limitations of previous accounts. I question whether such a machinery is plausible. Because individuals never need to learn the entire spectrum of kin terminology, they could rely on data-driven learning. The complexity of Jones's machinery for kin classification casts doubt on the existence of innate structures that cover the complete linguistic domain

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,394

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why do we need to coordinate when classifying kin?Drew Gerkey & Lee Cronk - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):385-386.
Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):367-381.
The algebraic logic of kinship terminology structures.Dwight W. Read - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):399-401.
Kinship, optimality, and typology.Simon Musgrave & David L. Dowe - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):397-398.
Thinking about kinship and thinking.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):404-416.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
48 (#459,103)

6 months
6 (#862,561)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christina Behme
Mount Saint Vincent University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations