No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Conceptual structure is constrained functionally, not formally
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2010
Abstract
Kinship systems are best explained functionally, in terms of the conflicting needs of the society concerned, rather than in terms of universal constraints, whether Optimality Theory or other; but OT is particularly unsuitable as it rules out taxonomies. A conceptual analysis of kinship terminology shows, not that “grammar” extends to kinship, but that general cognition has the formal power to handle grammar.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
References
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
32:429–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, R. (2009) Word grammar. In: The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. Heine, B. & Narrog, H., pp. 951–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010) An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2007) Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In: The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H., pp. 543–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Target article
Conceptual structure is constrained functionally, not formally
Related commentaries (1)
Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar