Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:52:43.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual structure is constrained functionally, not formally

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Richard Hudson
Richard Hudson
Affiliation:
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. [email protected]/home/dick/home.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 387
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.)

References

Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:429–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, R. (1996) Sociolinguistics, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2009) Word grammar. In: The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. Heine, B. & Narrog, H., pp. 951–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010) An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2007) Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In: The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H., pp. 543–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar