Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:09:44.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advancing our grasp of constrained variation in a crucial cognitive domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands PB 310 NL-6500 AH, The Netherlands. [email protected]://www.mpi.nl/people/levinson-stephen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jones's system of constraints promises interesting insights into the typology of kin term systems. Three problems arise: (1) the conflation of categories with algorithms that assign them threatens to weaken the typological predictions; (2) OT-type constraints have little psychological plausibility; (3) the conflation of kin-term systems and kinship systems may underplay the “utility function” character of real kinship in action.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 391 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Godelier, Trautmann M. T. R. & Tjon, Sie Fat, F. E., ed. (1998) Introduction. In: Transformations of kinship, pp. 1–26. Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. (1989) Rethinking the acquisition of kin terms. International Journal of Behavioral Development 12(4):541–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuper, A. (2009) Incest and influence. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1977) Social deixis in a Tamil village. PhD thesis, University of California, University Microfilms, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003a) Language and mind: Let's get the issues straight! In: Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, ed. Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S., pp. 25–46. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006a) Matrilineal clans and kin terms on Rossel Island. Anthropological Linguistics 48(1):1–43.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, J. & Gentner, D. (2005) Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology 50:315–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lounsbury, F. (1969) A formal analysis of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. In: Cognitive Anthropology, ed. Tyler, S., pp. 212–53. Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J. & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31:109–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romney, A. K. & D'Andrade, R. G. (1969) Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. In: Cognitive anthropology, ed. Tyler, S., pp. 369–96. Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar