Conceptual structure is constrained functionally, not formally

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):387 - 387 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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 extends to kinship, but that general cognition has the formal power to handle grammar

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):367-381.
The algebraic logic of kinship terminology structures.Dwight W. Read - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):399-401.
Getting the constraints right.Patrick McConvell - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):394-395.
Lexical universals of kinship and social cognition.Anna Wierzbicka - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):403-404.
Kinship terms are not kinship.Maurice Bloch - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):384-384.
Thinking about kinship and thinking.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):404-416.
Kinship, optimality, and typology.Simon Musgrave & David L. Dowe - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):397-398.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
19 (#825,863)

6 months
5 (#710,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations