Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T13:58:55.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Doug Jones
Doug Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. douglas.jones@anthro.utah.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

cognitive anthropologyconceptual structurecoordination gamesevolutionary psychologygrammarkinshipkin termslanguage evolutionOptimality Theory (OT)recursion
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 367 - 381
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

Aissen, J. (1999) Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, D. & Langendoen, D. T., ed. (1997) Optimality theory: An overview. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. & Börjars, K. (2006) Markedness in phonology and syntax: The problem of grounding. Lingua 116:710–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1996) How much space gets into language? In: Language and space, ed. Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F., pp. 31–76. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2000) How children learn the meanings of words. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R., Hoop, H. D. & Hendriks, P. (2006) Optimal communication. Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Buchler, I. & Selby, H. A. (1968) Kinship and social organization: An introduction to theory and method. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carsten, J. (1997) The heat of the hearth: The process of kinship in a Malay fishing community. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2001) Kinship in grammar. In: Dimensions of possession, ed. Baron, I., Herslund, M. & Sørenson, F., pp. 201–25. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Andrade, R. G. (1971) Procedures for predicting kinship terminology from features of social organization. In: Explorations in mathematical anthropology, ed. Kay, P., pp. 60–75. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G. & Markson, L. (2001) Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology 37:630–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, N. (1999) Kinship verbs. In: Approaches to the typology of word classes, ed. Vogel, P. M. & Comrie, B.. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (1967) Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. Penguin.Google Scholar
Frank, S. A. (1998) Foundations of social evolution. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W. (1965) Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. American Anthropologist 67(5):259–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W. (1967) Componential analysis. Science 67:1203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. (2000) A new system for the formal analysis of kinship. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966) Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1975) Research on language universals. Annual Review of Anthropology 4:75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1990) Universals of kinship terminology: Their nature and the problem of their explanation. In: On language: Selected writings of Joseph Greenberg, ed. Denning, K. & Kemmer, S., pp. 310–27. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2005) Words and structure. Center for the Study of Words and Information.Google Scholar
Hage, P. (1997) Unthinkable categories and the fundamental laws of kinship. American Ethnologist 24:652–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, P. (2001) Marking theory and kinship analysis. Anthropological Theory 1:197–211.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T. (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heck, F. & Müller, G. (2006) Extremely local optimization. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Western Conference of Linguistics, vol. 17, ed. Bainbridge, E. & Agbayani, B., pp. 170–82. Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. (1989) Rethinking the acquisition of kin terms. International Journal of Behavioral Development 12(4):541–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. (2003) The neural basis of predicate-argument structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26:261–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurford, J. (2007) The origins of meaning. Oxford.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41:9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language:Bbrain, meaning, grammar, and evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (2003a) The generative psychology of kinship, Part I: Cognitive universals and evolutionary psychology. Evolution and Human Behavior 24:303–19.CrossRefGoogle 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
Jones, D. (2004) The universal psychology of kinship: Evidence from language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(5):211–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. (2010) Grammars of kinship and color: Cognitive universals and optimal communication. In: Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies, ed. Jones, D. & Milicic, B., pp. 196–211. University of Utah.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1975) The generative analysis of kinship semantics: A reanalysis of the Seneca data. Foundations of Language 13:201–14.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Maffi, L. (1999) Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons. American Anthropologist 101:743–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesing, R. M. (1975) Kin groups and social structure. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1909) Classificatory systems of relationship. Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute 39:77–84.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (1996) Plastic glasses and church fathers: Semantic extension from the ethnoscience tradition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2006) Issues in the classification of kinship terminologies: Toward a new typology. Anthropos 101:203–19.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2009) Fanti kinship and the analysis of kinship terminologies. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Leaf, M. J. (2006) Experimental-formal analysis of kinship. Ethnology 45(4):305–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J. & Vikner, S., ed. (2001) Optimality-theoretic syntax. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G., Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P. (2006) The optimality theory – harmonic grammar connection. In: The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical implications, ed. Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G., pp. 339–402. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehman, F. K. (Hlaing, F. K. L. Chit) (1993) The relationship between genealogical and terminological structure in kinship terminologies. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 4:95–122.Google Scholar
Lehman, F. K. (Hlaing, F. K. L. Chit) (2001) Aspects of a formalist theory of kinship: The functional basis of genealogical roots and some extensions in generalized alliance theory. Anthropological Theory 1:212–38.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006a) Matrilineal clans and kin terms on Rossel Island. Anthropological Linguistics 48(1):1–43.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006b) On the human “interaction engine.” In: Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., pp. 39–69. Berg.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P. (2006) Patterns in the data: Towards a semantic typology of spatial descriptions. In: Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, ed. Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P., pp. 512–52. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963) Structural anthropology. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969) The elementary structures of kinship. Beacon.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. (1964a) The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, ed. Hunt, H. G.. pp. 1073–93. Mouton.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
McCarthy, J. J. (2001) A thematic survey of optimality theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2007a) Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in optimality theory. Equinox.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. (1954/1851) League of the Ho-de'-no–sau-nee, or Iroquois (2 volumes) Human Relations Area Files.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. (1997/1871) Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2003) Local versus global optimization in syntax: A case study. www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/mu36.pdf.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1970) Kin term patterns and their distribution. Ethnology 9(2):165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, R. (1958) A structural analysis of Purum society. American Anthropologist 60:75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerlove, S. & Romney, A. K. (1967) Sibling terminology and cross-sex behavior. American Anthropologist 69:179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R. A. (1934) The North American Indians: An account of the American Indians north of Mexico, compiled from the original sources. Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. (1997) Kinship: An introduction to basic concepts. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007) The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (2007) Let the decimal system do it for you: A very simple utility function for OT. Rutgers Optimality Archive #943–1207. roa.rutgers.edu.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004/1993) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. (1984) An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology. Current Anthropology 25:417–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. (2001a) Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship. Anthropological Theory 1(2):239–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. (2001b) What is kinship? In: The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David Schneider and its implications for anthropological relativism, ed. Feinberg, R. & Ottenheimer, M., pp. 78–117. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Romney, A. K. & D'Andrade, R. (1964) Cognitive aspects of English kinship. American Anthropologist 67:146–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, H. W. (1968) Australian kin classification. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, H. W. & Lounsbury, F. G. (1971) A study in structural semantics: The Siriono kinship system. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. (1984) A critique of the study of kinship. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, R. & Cheney, D. (2008) Primate social knowledge and the origins of language. Mind and Society 7:129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, W. (2008) What human kinship is primarily about: Toward a critique of the new kinship studies. Social Anthropology 16:137–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. (2006) Harmony optimization and the computational architecture of the mind/brain. In: The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. 1: Cognitive architecture, ed. Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G., pp. 3–61. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sousa, P. (2003) The fall of kinship: Towards an epidemiological explanation. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3(4):265–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995/1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stone, L. (2000) Kinship and gender: An introduction. Westview.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a) The relation of grammar to cognition. In: Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I, ed. Talmy, L., pp. 21–96. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000b) How language structures space. In: Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I, ed. Talmy, L.. pp. 177–254. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (2000) Learnability in optimality theory. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:675–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trautmann, T. R. (1987) Lewis Henry Morgan and the invention of kinship. University of California.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. F. C. & Atkins, J. (1960) The meaning of kinship terms. American Anthropologist 62:57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. (1984) Universals and role options in kinship terminology: A synthesis of three formal approaches. American Ethnologist 11:771–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar