Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Johnson, Kent M. and Paul, Kathleen S. 2016. Bioarchaeology and Kinship: Integrating Theory, Social Relatedness, and Biology in Ancient Family Research. Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 24, Issue. 1, p. 75.

    Machin, Anna and Dunbar, Robin 2016. Is Kinship a Schema? Moral Decisions and the Function of the Human Kin Naming System. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, Vol. 2, Issue. 3, p. 195.

    Bentley, R. Alexander and O’Brien, Michael J. 2015. Collective behaviour, uncertainty and environmental change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 373, Issue. 2055, p. 20140461.

    Gerkey, Drew 2015. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.

    Nevins, Andrew 2015. Triumphs and limits of the Contrastivity-Only Hypothesis. Linguistic Variation, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 41.

    Regier, Terry Kemp, Charles and Kay, Paul 2015. The Handbook of Language Emergence.

    Wu, Haiyan Ge, Yue Tang, Honghong Luo, Yue-Jia Mai, Xiaoqin and Liu, Chao 2015. Language modulates brain activity underlying representation of kinship terms. Scientific Reports, Vol. 5, p. 18473.

    Biró, Tamás 2014. A Biological/Computational Approach to Culture(s) Is Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 140.

    van de Weijer, Jeroen 2014. The origin of OT constraints. Lingua, Vol. 142, p. 66.

    Malt, Barbara C. and Majid, Asifa 2013. How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, p. n/a.

    Goodman, James 2012. The conjectured role of Polani et al.’s relevant information, behavioral variation and recursive cognition in selection for a human language faculty. Language Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue. 5, p. 604.

    Jones, D. 2012. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior.

    Kemp, C. and Regier, T. 2012. Kinship Categories Across Languages Reflect General Communicative Principles. Science, Vol. 336, Issue. 6084, p. 1049.

    Levinson, S. C. 2012. Kinship and Human Thought. Science, Vol. 336, Issue. 6084, p. 988.

    Jordan, Fiona M. 2011. A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Evolution of Austronesian Sibling Terminologies. Human Biology, Vol. 83, Issue. 2, p. 297.


Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar

  • Doug Jones (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 17 December 2010

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Aissen (1999) Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673711.

R. Bermúdez-Otero & K. Börjars (2006) Markedness in phonology and syntax: The problem of grounding. Lingua 116:710–56.

Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) Kinship in grammar. In: Dimensions of possession, ed. I. Baron , M. Herslund & F. Sørenson , pp. 201–25. John Benjamins.

G. Diesendruck & L. Markson (2001) Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology 37:630–44.

W. Goodenough (1965) Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. American Anthropologist 67(5):259–87.

J. H. Greenberg (1975) Research on language universals. Annual Review of Anthropology 4:7594.

P. Hage (1997) Unthinkable categories and the fundamental laws of kinship. American Ethnologist 24:652–67.

P. Hage (2001) Marking theory and kinship analysis. Anthropological Theory 1:197211.

M. D. Hauser , N. Chomsky & T. Fitch (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–79.

L. Hirschfeld (1989) Rethinking the acquisition of kin terms. International Journal of Behavioral Development 12(4):541–68.

J. Hurford (2003) The neural basis of predicate-argument structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26:261–83.

R. Jackendoff (1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41:945.

R. Jackendoff (2002) Foundations of language:Bbrain, meaning, grammar, and evolution. Oxford University Press.

D. Jones (2003a) The generative psychology of kinship, Part I: Cognitive universals and evolutionary psychology. Evolution and Human Behavior 24:303–19.

D. Jones (2003b) The generative psychology of kinship: Part II. Generating variation from universal building blocks with optimality theory. Evolution and Human Behavior 24:320–50.

D. Jones (2004) The universal psychology of kinship: Evidence from language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(5):211–15.

P. Kay & L. Maffi (1999) Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons. American Anthropologist 101:743–60.

M. J. Leaf (2006) Experimental-formal analysis of kinship. Ethnology 45(4):305–30.

F. K. Lehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing ) (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.

G. P. Murdock (1970) Kin term patterns and their distribution. Ethnology 9(2):165208.

R. Needham (1958) A structural analysis of Purum society. American Anthropologist 60:75101.

S. Nerlove & A. K. Romney (1967) Sibling terminology and cross-sex behavior. American Anthropologist 69:179–87.

A. Prince & P. Smolensky (2004/1993) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell.

D. Read (1984) An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology. Current Anthropology 25:417–49.

D. Read (2001a) Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship. Anthropological Theory 1(2):239–67.

D. Schneider (1984) A critique of the study of kinship. University of Michigan Press.

R. Seyfarth & D. Cheney (2008) Primate social knowledge and the origins of language. Mind and Society 7:129–42.

W. Shapiro (2008) What human kinship is primarily about: Toward a critique of the new kinship studies. Social Anthropology 16:137–53.

P. Sousa (2003) The fall of kinship: Towards an epidemiological explanation. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3(4):265303.

M. Tomasello , M. Carpenter , J. Call , T. Behne & H. Moll (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:675735.

A. F. C. Wallace & J. Atkins (1960) The meaning of kinship terms. American Anthropologist 62:5780.

E. Woolford (1984) Universals and role options in kinship terminology: A synthesis of three formal approaches. American Ethnologist 11:771–90.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *