No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Conceptual implications of kinship terminological systems: Special problems and multiple analytic approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2010
Abstract
I raise issues concerning Jones' Seneca analysis, its relationship to analyses of Dravidian-, Crow-, and Omaha-type systems. These affect the convincingness of his kinship study, and thus the wider conclusions that he wants to draw regarding human cognition and language.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
References
Gould, S. (2000) A new system for the formal analysis of kinship. University Press of America.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
Read, D. (2001a) Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship. Anthropological Theory
1(2):239–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romney, A. K. (1965) Kalmuk Mongol and the classification of lineal kinship terminologies. In: Formal semantic analysis, ed. Hammel, E. A., pp. 127–41. American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Romney, A. K. & D'Andrade, R. (1964) Cognitive aspects of English kinship. American Anthropologist
67:146–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Conceptual implications of kinship terminological systems: Special problems and multiple analytic approaches
Related commentaries (1)
Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar