Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-lb7rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T15:34:01.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinship terminology: polysemy or categorization?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Lotte Hogeweg ,
Géraldine Legendre  and
Paul Smolensky
Lotte Hogeweg
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218. hogeweg@cogsci.jhu.edulegendre@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Legendre/smolensky@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Smolensky/
Géraldine Legendre
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218. hogeweg@cogsci.jhu.edulegendre@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Legendre/smolensky@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Smolensky/
Paul Smolensky
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218. hogeweg@cogsci.jhu.edulegendre@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Legendre/smolensky@jhu.eduhttp://web.jhu.edu/cogsci/people/faculty/Smolensky/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article offers an analysis of the categorization of kin types and empirical evidence that cross-cultural universals may be amenable to OT explanation. Since the analysis concerns the structuring of conceptual categories rather than the use of words, it differs from previous OT analyses in lexical semantics in what is considered to be the input and output of optimization.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 386 - 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

Fong, V. (2005) Unmarked already: Aspectual expressions in two varieties of English. In: Perspectives on aspect, ed. Verkuyl, H. J., De Swart, H. & van Hout, A., pp. 251–67. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogeweg, L. (2009) Word in process: On the interpretation, acquisition and production of words. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell. Technical Report CU-CS-696-93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder and Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H. (2002) Explaining presupposition triggers. In: Information sharing, ed. van Deemter, K. & Kibble, R., pp. 61–87. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2004) Competition between word meanings: The polysemy of (A)Round. In: Proceedings of SuB8, ed. Meier, C. & Weisgerber, M., pp. 349–60. University of Konstanz Linguistics Working Papers.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2008) Priorities in the production of prepositions. In: The syntax and semantics of spatial P [linguistik aktuell/linguistics today 120], ed. Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R., pp. 85–102. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar