Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T17:32:42.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thinking about kinship and thinking

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

The target article proposes a theory uniting the anthropological study of kin terminology with recent developments in linguistics and cognitive science. The response to comments reaches two broad conclusions. First, the theory may be relevant to several current areas of research, including (a) the nature and scope of the regular, “grammatical” side of language, (b) the organization of different domains of conceptual structure, including parallels across domains, their taxonomic distribution and implications for evolution, and (c) the influence of conceptual structure on social structure. Second, the theory compares favorably with alternatives, including (a) the theory that kin terminology is not really that complicated, (b) the theory that kin terms mirror social categories, (c) componential analysis, and (d) kinship algebra. If further research in anthropology, linguistics, and other fields supports the theory, and confirms the psychological reality of proposed mechanisms, then kinship may emerge as a model system for the study of important issues in cognition and social organization.

Information

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 404 - 416
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alvard, M. (2003) Kinship, lineage identity, and an evolutionary perspective on the structure of cooperative big game hunting groups in Indonesia. Human Nature 14:129–63.Google Scholar
Bennardo, G. & Read, D. (2010) Salience of verticality and horizontality in American and Tongan kinship terminologies. In: Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies, ed. Jones, D. & Milicic, B., pp. 173–91. University of Utah.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998) A prosodic model of sign language phonology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. (2007) Baboon metaphysics: The evolution of a social mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coult, A. (1966) A simplified method for the transformational analysis of kin terms. American Anthropologist 68:1476–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godelier, M. Trautmann, T. R. & Tjon, Sie Fat, F. E., ed. (1998) Introduction. In: Transformations of kinship, pp. 1–26. Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Gould, S. (2000) A new system for the formal analysis of kinship. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Héritier, F. (2002) Two sisters and their mother: The anthropology of incest. Zone Books.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language:Bbrain, meaning, grammar, and evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (2000) Group nepotism and human kinship. Current Anthropology 41:779–809.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.Google Scholar
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
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
Lounsbury, F. (1965) Another view of Trobriand kinship categories. In: Formal semantic analysis, ed. Hammel, E. A., pp. 142–86. American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:143–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, L. H. (1997/1871) Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1949) Social structure. The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007) The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking.Google Scholar
Read, D. (2008) Working memory: A cognitive limit to non-human primate recursive thinking prior to hominid evolution. Evolutionary Psychology 6:676–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Hirschfeld, L. (2004) The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:40–46.Google Scholar
Whiting, J. W. M., Burton, M. L., Romney, A. K., Moore, C. C. & White, D. R. (1988) A reanalysis of Murdock's model for social structure based on optimal scaling. Behavior Science Research 22:23–40.Google Scholar