Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:30:46.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Typological variation of kinship terminologies is a function of strict ranking of constraints on nested binary classification trees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Paul Miers
Paul Miers
Affiliation:
English Department, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252-0001. [email protected]://sites.google.com/site/pdmiers/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jones argues that extending Seneca kin terms to second cousins requires a revised version of Optimality Theoretic grammar. I extend Seneca terms using three constraints on expression of markers in nested binary classification trees. Multiple constraint rankings on a nested set coupled with local parity checking determines how a given kin classification grammar marks structural endogamy.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 395 - 397
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

Ackerman, C. (1976) Omaha and “Omaha.” American Ethnologist 3(4):555–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapais, B. (2008) Primeval kinship: How pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. (1967) Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. Penguin.Google Scholar
Hage, P. (2001) Marking theory and kinship analysis. Anthropological Theory 1:197–211.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (2003b) The generative psychology of kinship: Part II. Generating variation from universal building blocks with optimality theory. Evolution and Human Behavior 24:320–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapsalis, E. (2008) Matrilineal kinship and primate behavior. In: Kinship and behavior in primates, ed. Chapais, B. & Berman, C. M., pp. 153–76. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. (1964b) The formal analysis of Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. In: Explorations in cultural anthropology: Essays in honor of George Peter Murdock, ed. Goodenough, W. H., pp. 351–93. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lowie, R. H. (1928) A note on relationship terminologies. American Anthropologist 30(2):263–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strier, K. B. (2004) Patrilineal kinship and primate behavior. In: Kinship and behavior in primates, ed. Chapais, B. & Berman, C. M., pp. 177–99. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, T. R. & Barnes, R. H. (1998) “Dravidian,” “Iroquois,” and “Crow-Omaha” in North American perspective. In: Transformations of kinship, ed. Godelier, M., Trautmann, T. R. & Tjon Sie Fat, F. E., pp. 27–58. Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
White, D. R. (1997) Structural endogamy and the Graphe de Parenté. Mathématiques, Informatique, et Sciences Humaines 137:107–25.Google Scholar