Does kinship terminology provide evidence for or against universal grammar?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):381 - 382 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Jones introduces an intricate machinery of kin classification that overcomes limitations of previous accounts. I question whether such a machinery is plausible. Because individuals never need to learn the entire spectrum of kin terminology, they could rely on data-driven learning. The complexity of Jones's machinery for kin classification casts doubt on the existence of innate structures that cover the complete linguistic domain

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence, and the future.John Mikhail - 2007 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):143 –152.
Type Theory and Universal Grammar.Aarne Ranta - 2006 - Philosophia Scientiae:115-131.
The algebraic logic of kinship terminology structures.Dwight W. Read - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):399-401.
Pragmatic and positivistic analyses of kinship terminology.Murray J. Leaf - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):390-391.
Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.Michael A. Arbib - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):668-669.
Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):367-381.
Grammar. For Writing? A Critical Review of Empirical Evidence.Dominic Wyse - 2001 - British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (4):411 - 427.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
36 (#431,270)

6 months
1 (#1,533,009)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christina Behme
Mount Saint Vincent University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations