Dan Sperber's blog

Is kinship back?

Published on 27 May 2012 at 13:31

In the last issue of Science (25 May, 2012), a plea by Stephen Levinson for the study of kinship terminology, and an article by Charles Kemp and Terry Regier making a novel contribution to that study.

 

Charles Kemp talks about his and Regier's research

Levinson writes: "In 1860, Lewis Henry Morgan heard an Iowa man on a Nebraska reservation describe a small boy as “uncle.” Fascinated, he embarked on lifelong research into the kinship systems of the world’s cultures, which culminated in a typology of kin categories. Work on kinship categories flourished for a hundred years, but then became unfashionable. Yet, kinship is crucial to the transmission of human genes, culture, mores, and assets. Recent studies have begun to reinvigorate the study of kinship categories. … Kinship is a fertile domain in which to ask a question at the heart of the cognitive sciences: Why do humans have the conceptual categories they do? … There are more than 6000 languages, each with a different system of kin classification, at least in detail. … What constrains this exuberant diversity of systems?"

In their article entitled "Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles" (available here), Kemp and Regier argue:

 

 

"Languages vary in their systems of kinship categories but the scope of possible variation appears to be constrained. Previous accounts of kin classification have often emphasized constraints that are specific to the domain of kinship and are not derived from general principles. Here we propose an account that is founded on two domain-general principles: Good systems of categories are simple, and they enable informative communication. We show computationally that kin classification systems in the world’s languages achieve a nearoptimal tradeoff between these two competing principles. We also show that our account explains several specific constraints on kin classification proposed previously. Because the principles of simplicity and informativeness are also relevant to other semantic domains, the tradeoff between them may provide a domain-general foundation for variation in category systems across languages."

 

 

It seems to me that Kemp and Regier's 'simplicity' and 'informativeness' taken together play the same role as 'relevance' defined in relevance theory as a negative function of processing efforts and a positive function of cognitive effets, and that their findings are consistent with predicitions following from the theory's 'cognitive principle of relevance'. Be that as it may, this thought-provoking paper may indeed contribute to a new start in work on kinship terminologies, and on categories systems more generally, based on sound pragmatic principles.

PS Of related interest in this issue of Science, an article by Michael C. Frank and Noah D. Goodman entitled "Predicting Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Games"

 

 

Leave comment
4

Kinship Studies
Benson Saler   31 May 2012 at 15:22
My thanks to Dan Sperber for passing on the good news about Levinson and Kemp and Regier. While kinship studies were never totally eclipsed in anthropology, thanks not only to the persistence of scholars such as Harold Scheffler but to pragmatic ethnographic needs in studying social organization among numbers of populations, the sharp decline of interest in the subject in recent decades betokened, in my opinion, a fan of lamentable shifts in the theoretical and analytical perspectives and concerns of many anthropologists. A rise in the importance accorded to kinship studies, in contrast, is very likely to betoken a rise in analytical rigor and scientific aspirations. Welcome back!


Kinship and anthropology
Carles Salazar   31 July 2012 at 23:26

I fully endorse Benson’s views on the return of kinship studies. It is to be expected that anthropology will gradually shed its post-Schneiderian relativistic paranoia and reinvigorate one of the founding subjects of the discipline. Arguably, kinship has never been fully absent from current anthropological research, yet mainstream social constructivist approaches turned it into sterile theoretical discussions and mere ethnographic butterfly collecting. Anthropologists have ignored (or misrecognised) for too long the biological and evolutionary foundations of kinship bonds and it is time to make up for this unpardonable neglect. There is much to be gained from an evolutionary and biocultural approach to kinship and for interdisciplinary collaboration with psychologists and biologists in that laudable enterprise.




Reclaiming Kinship
Dwight Read   30 March 2013 at 06:55

Yes, kinship is back -- or more accurately, it is reclaiming its original vigor.  Haven't you heard of the Kinship Circle?  For each of the past three years, and as part of this year's annual meeting of the Amerian Anthropological Association as well, we have had highly successful sessions on kinship.  The sessions have been integrated with the themes of each of the meetings.   We have had an international group of scholars from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, Italy, Qatar and the United States, presenting a wide range of papers, ranging from more "classic" questions about kinship systems to current research that is challenging some of our theoretical ideas about what constitutes kinship.  The papers from the first two sessions will be published shortly.  
Dwight Read
Fadwa El Guindi




The Logical Basis of Kinship Terminologies
Dwight Read   30 March 2013 at 09:17

In respect to kinship terminologies, Levinson's question, "What constrains this exuberant diversity of systems?", is not answered by Kemp and Regier's analysis for one simple reason: Terminologies have a structure and logic, like grammars for language, that determine the possible range of kinship terminologies.  Kemp and Regier assume any partition of the space of genealogical relations is a potential terminology and then show that existing terminologies occupy only a small portion of this space due, they assert, to a tradeoff between simplicity and usefulness.  This would be like saying a sentence can be any subset of all possible vocabulary words, then asserting that the realized languages have sentences that are a tradeoff between simplicity and usefulness, but ignoring the fact that the simplicity and usefulness of sentences is created through the grammar of the language that constrains what are admissible sentences.   The same is true for kinship terminologies, and the answer to Levinson's question has already been made by showing that kinship terminologies have a generative structure that determines the corpus of kinship terms, starting from the primary kin terms of a terminology, along with kinship concepts that are expressed in the terminology (such as reciprocity of kin terms), and the kinship structural properties embedded in a particular terminology (Read 1984, 2001, 2007, 2009; Read and Behrens 1990; Leaf and Read 2012, among others).  For example, the difference giving rise to the fundamental division of terminologies into descriptive versus classificatory (bifurcate merging) terminologies derives from two different ways that sibling relations are conceptualized in different societies: (1) a sibling is the child of my parent other than myself (descriptive terminologies) or (2) siblings are those persons who have parents in common (classificatory terminologies) (Bennardo and Read 2007; Read, Fischer and Leaf 2013). Trying to understand kinship terminologies (and hence kinship systems) without first working out the generative logic of a terminology is like trying to understand languages without working out the grammar of a language.  Extensive work has already been published on the generative logic of kinship terminologies and this work makes evident what constrains the variability in kinship terminologies that Levinson asks about.

References

Bennardo, G. and D. Read  2007. Cognition, Algebra, and Culture in the Tongan Kinship Terminology. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7: 49-88.

Leaf, M. and D. Read. (2012)  Human Thought and Social Organization: Anthropology on a New Plane.  Lanham: Lexington Press

Read, D. l984.  An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology.  Current Anthropology 25: 4l7-440

Read, D. 2001 What is Kinship? In The Cultural Analysis of Kinship: The Legacy of David Schneider and Its Implications for Anthropological Relativism, R. Feinberg and M. Ottenheimer eds. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Pp. 78-117.

Read, D. 2007. Kinship Theory: A Paradigm Shift. Ethnology 46(4):329-364

Read, D. 2009. Another Look at Kinship: Reasons Why a Paradigm Shift is Needed.  Algebra Rodtsva 12:42-69.

Read, D. and C. Behrens. 1990.  KAES: An expert system for the algebraic analysis of kinship terminologies.   J. of Quantitative Anthropology 2:353-393.

Read, D., Fischer, M. and M. Leaf. 2013. What are kinship terminologies, and why do we care? A computational approach to analyzing symbolic domains. Social Science Computer Review 31(1): 16-44.




Dan Sperber

Website: http://www.dansperber.fr
City: Paris
Country: France
About me:

cognitive anthropology

Latest comments

Comment on: Cognition, Culture and Caricature
Published on 25 September 2008 at 16:03
Comment on: Maori Memories
Published on 26 October 2008 at 01:00
Comment on: Maori Memories
Published on 26 October 2008 at 01:00
Comment on: Ideas of immanent justice in cognition and culture
Published on 23 October 2008 at 11:02
Comment on: Picture of the week: enteromancy among the Dorze of Southern Ethiopia
Published on 28 October 2008 at 19:52
Comment on: Tasty food for anthropological thought
Published on 29 October 2008 at 01:43
Comment on: Are humans intuitive dualists?
Published on 31 October 2008 at 13:13
Comment on: Community and Religion: poor predictors of the bliss of nations
Published on 14 November 2008 at 14:44
Comment on: Are humans intuitive dualists?
Published on 18 November 2008 at 14:49
Comment on: "You work in WHAT field?"
Published on 27 November 2008 at 10:13
Comment on: Claude Lévi-Strauss: the first 100 years
Published on 29 November 2008 at 14:48
Comment on: Claude Lévi-Strauss: the first 100 years
Published on 30 November 2008 at 17:10
Comment on: Do we bend it like Beckham?
Published on 30 November 2008 at 20:26
Comment on: "Times Higher Ed", stop muddying the waters
Published on 2 December 2008 at 19:19
Comment on: Claude Lévi-Strauss: the first 100 years
Published on 4 December 2008 at 16:31
Comment on: Claude Lévi-Strauss: the first 100 years
Published on 4 December 2008 at 16:33
Comment on: Scots, Birds, and Names
Published on 16 January 2009 at 22:30
Comment on: The Wisdom of Whores
Published on 15 December 2008 at 23:59
Comment on: Picture of the week: Rebuilding a house among the Zafimaniry... and rethinking cognitive approaches
Published on 3 January 2009 at 00:29
Comment on: A case for the Cognitive principle of relevance
Published on 7 January 2009 at 13:26
Comment on: Why do we sometimes de-humanize our fellow humans? Some preliminary reflections
Published on 9 January 2009 at 19:13
Comment on: A case for the Cognitive principle of relevance
Published on 24 January 2009 at 19:27
Comment on: How automatic are human social skills?
Published on 29 January 2009 at 13:18
Comment on: "Math professor figures formula for Beatles success"
Published on 7 February 2009 at 02:44
Comment on: The relevance of cognitive relevance for students of culture
Published on 13 February 2009 at 02:12
Comment on: How persistent are intuitive (erroneous) beliefs?
Published on 8 March 2009 at 12:08
Comment on: Cross-cultural differences in risk taking
Published on 8 March 2009 at 20:33
Comment on: What is an institution, that people may participate in it?
Published on 9 March 2009 at 11:36
Comment on: Pictures of the week: Culture and Cognition in Cetaceans
Published on 18 March 2009 at 14:29
Comment on: Interpretive traditions
Published on 29 March 2009 at 00:41
Comment on: How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations
Published on 4 April 2009 at 23:59
Comment on: Success or Prestige? Hunters' cultural biases
Published on 30 April 2009 at 17:37
Comment on: The interpretive process
Published on 26 May 2009 at 19:01
Comment on: Pierre Jacob reviews 'Mothers and Others', by Sarah B. Hrdy
Published on 5 September 2009 at 18:47
Comment on: The quest for Jesus
Published on 12 September 2009 at 21:58
Comment on: Meaning in sounds?
Published on 16 September 2009 at 14:32
Comment on: Grieving animals?
Published on 13 November 2009 at 16:32
Comment on: Is the spell broken? Reflections on evolutionary debunking and religious beliefs
Published on 20 November 2009 at 12:47
Comment on: The scope of natural pedagogy theory (I): babies
Published on 29 November 2009 at 20:16
Comment on: “I read Playboy for the articles”
Published on 30 November 2009 at 19:58
Comment on: The scope of natural pedagogy theory (I): babies
Published on 30 November 2009 at 22:57
Comment on: The scope of natural pedagogy theory (I): babies
Published on 5 December 2009 at 19:27
Comment on: Jingle Bell - Punjabi Tadka
Published on 30 December 2009 at 22:09
Comment on: Cognition under the high brow
Published on 22 January 2010 at 19:25
Comment on: Mad in America
Published on 25 January 2010 at 12:49
Comment on: Four recipes for religion
Published on 17 February 2010 at 16:32
Comment on: Religion science: if you pay the piper, do you call the tune?
Published on 21 February 2010 at 15:27
Comment on: Block and Kitcher review What Darwin Got Wrong by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini
Published on 4 March 2010 at 19:20
Comment on: Cultural differences and linguistic justice
Published on 16 March 2010 at 10:48
Comment on: Block and Kitcher review What Darwin Got Wrong by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini
Published on 21 March 2010 at 15:44
Comment on: Is the “problem of evil” universal?
Published on 21 March 2010 at 18:36
Comment on: Learn about Social Neuroscience
Published on 25 March 2010 at 17:22
Comment on: On the Use of Natural Experiments in Anthropology
Published on 8 April 2010 at 00:10
Comment on: Are variations in economic games really caused by culture?
Published on 1 May 2010 at 02:22
Comment on: Endorsing evolution: A matter of authority?
Published on 1 May 2010 at 03:25
Comment on: Are variations in economic games really caused by culture?
Published on 1 May 2010 at 22:22
Comment on: Endorsing evolution: A matter of authority?
Published on 1 May 2010 at 23:02
Comment on: Are variations in economic games really caused by culture?
Published on 3 May 2010 at 03:55
Comment on: Are variations in economic games really caused by culture?
Published on 3 May 2010 at 20:09
Comment on: Innocents fornicating and apes grieving
Published on 10 May 2010 at 21:26
Comment on: Innocents fornicating and apes grieving
Published on 19 May 2010 at 23:34
Comment on: Learning and prestige among chimpanzees
Published on 22 May 2010 at 19:48
Comment on: Why do we make our tastes public?
Published on 30 May 2010 at 02:46
Comment on: Innocents fornicating and apes grieving
Published on 30 May 2010 at 18:06
Comment on: Believing Maurice Bloch on doubting, doubting him on believing
Published on 8 June 2010 at 15:01
Comment on: Believing Maurice Bloch on doubting, doubting him on believing
Published on 13 June 2010 at 01:22
Comment on: The self in 'face' and 'dignity' cultures
Published on 13 June 2010 at 10:47
Comment on: The self in 'face' and 'dignity' cultures
Published on 15 June 2010 at 09:41
Comment on: “Oy vey, have you got the wrong vampire!” A reply to Frans de Waal
Published on 24 June 2010 at 18:18
Comment on: “Oy vey, have you got the wrong vampire!” A reply to Frans de Waal
Published on 28 June 2010 at 03:55
Comment on: Block and Kitcher review What Darwin Got Wrong by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini
Published on 2 July 2010 at 11:31
Comment on: Opacity tasting with Dan and Maurice
Published on 3 August 2010 at 00:26
Comment on: Can Antropologists and other Cognitive Scientist live together?
Published on 22 September 2010 at 09:16
Comment on: György Gergely on genericity
Published on 6 December 2010 at 00:50
Comment on: György Gergely on genericity
Published on 15 December 2010 at 15:21
Comment on: György Gergely on genericity
Published on 21 December 2010 at 14:27
Comment on: György Gergely on genericity
Published on 30 December 2010 at 23:05
Comment on: György Gergely on genericity
Published on 30 December 2010 at 23:13
Comment on: Human avoidance in pointing: a cultural universal?
Published on 21 February 2011 at 01:00
Comment on: Why would (otherwise intelligent) scholars believe in "Religion"?
Published on 23 February 2011 at 01:54
Comment on: Why would (otherwise intelligent) scholars believe in "Religion"?
Published on 23 February 2011 at 02:02
Comment on: What is anthropology about?
Published on 2 March 2011 at 23:43
Comment on: Words or Deeds
Published on 28 March 2011 at 19:53
Comment on: History of social sciences week!
Published on 27 June 2011 at 18:53
Comment on: Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) on intuitive and reflective processes
Published on 29 June 2011 at 21:34
Comment on: Adam Smith (1723-1790) on ultimate and proximate causes in psychology
Published on 30 June 2011 at 14:56
Comment on: Modularity and decision making
Published on 5 July 2011 at 15:10
Comment on: What's the point of talking to your child?
Published on 17 February 2012 at 11:35
Comment on: Are we sure we can groom beyond Dunbar's number?
Published on 7 June 2012 at 11:56
Comment on: Do we use different tools to mindread a defendant and a goalkeeper?
Published on 15 August 2012 at 15:23
Comment on: Religious beliefs: Matter of fact or of preference?
Published on 9 October 2012 at 12:15
Comment on: Religious beliefs: Matter of fact or of preference?
Published on 19 October 2012 at 19:17
Comment on: Why do mathematicians always agree?
Published on 6 December 2012 at 16:16
Comment on: We are not intuitive monists — but then, what are we?
Published on 26 January 2013 at 11:06
Comment on: The 'gratitude trap' where Hungarian patients keep falling
Published on 23 May 2013 at 18:52
Comment on: Culture: A scientific idea
Published on 6 January 2015 at 22:25
Comment on: Culture: A scientific idea
Published on 7 January 2015 at 16:06
Comment on: Why reading minds is not like reading words
Published on 22 January 2015 at 23:51
Comment on: Why reading minds is not like reading words
Published on 23 January 2015 at 19:37
Comment on: Key notions in the study of communication
Published on 23 June 2015 at 19:36
Comment on: Inferential communication and information theory
Published on 2 July 2015 at 11:41
Comment on: Inferential communication and information theory
Published on 2 July 2015 at 12:07
Comment on: Cats, tacs and kunvenshuns
Published on 3 July 2015 at 14:09
Comment on: A closer look at communication among our closest relatives
Published on 4 July 2015 at 19:58
Comment on: Inferential communication and information theory
Published on 6 July 2015 at 15:02
Comment on: Inferential communication and information theory
Published on 6 July 2015 at 19:26
Comment on: The Evolution of Evolutionary Psychology
Published on 5 March 2016 at 17:46
Comment on: The Evolution of Evolutionary Psychology
Published on 7 March 2016 at 11:03
Comment on: The Evolution of Evolutionary Psychology
Published on 10 March 2016 at 00:54
Comment on: Cultural variation in the mitigation of moral judgments
Published on 26 May 2016 at 16:12
Comment on: How not to combine ethnography and experiments in the study of moral judgment
Published on 2 June 2016 at 19:16
Comment on: How not to combine ethnography and experiments in the study of moral judgment
Published on 5 June 2016 at 00:19