Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):367-381 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Research in anthropology has shown that kin terminologies have a complex combinatorial structure and vary systematically across cultures. This article argues that universals and variation in kin terminology result from the interaction of (1) an innate conceptual structure of kinship, homologous with conceptual structure in other domains, and (2) principles of optimal, “grammatical” communication active in language in general. Kin terms from two languages, English and Seneca, show how terminologies that look very different on the surface may result from variation in the rankings of a universal set of constraints. Constraints on kin terms form a system: some are concerned with absolute features of kin (sex), others with the position (distance and direction) of kin in “kinship space,” others with groups and group boundaries (matrilines, patrilines, generations, etc.). Also, kin terms sometimes extend indefinitely via recursion, and recursion in kin terminology has parallels with recursion in other areas of language. Thus the study of kinship sheds light on two areas of cognition, and their phylogeny. The conceptual structure of kinship seems to borrow its organization from the conceptual structure of space, while being specialized for representing genealogy. And the grammar of kinship looks like the product of an evolved grammar faculty, opportunistically active across traditional domains of semantics, syntax, and phonology. Grammar is best understood as an offshoot of a uniquely human capacity for playing coordination games.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,449

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

Thinking about kinship and thinking.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):404-416.
Conceptual structure is constrained functionally, not formally.Richard Hudson - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):387 - 387.
Why do we need to coordinate when classifying kin?Drew Gerkey & Lee Cronk - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):385-386.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
90 (#240,824)

6 months
9 (#328,796)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?