Anthropos: Anthropos, 101.2006+Ind.1906-2005(CD-ROM)

Anthropos, 101.2006+Ind.1906-2005(CD-ROM)

Bibliographische Daten

Zeitschrift

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschrift

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

Persistenter Identifier:: BV043334262

Titel:: Anthropos

Untertitel:: internationale Zeitschrift für Völker- u. Sprachenkunde

Erscheinungsort:: Fribourg

Verlag:: Ed. St. Paul

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1906

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Wissensgebiet:: Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie > Allgemeines

Zeitschriftenband

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenband

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711754

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711754

Persistenter Identifier:: 1510223177592

Titel:: Anthropos, 101.2006+Ind.1906-2005(CD-ROM)

Erscheinungsjahr:: 2006

Signatur:: LA 1118

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenheft

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenheft

Titel:: Bd. 101, 2006, Heft 1

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenartikel

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenartikel

Titel:: Issues in the Classification of Kinship Terminologies. Toward a New Typology

Sonstige Person:: Kronenfeld, David B.

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Anthropos 101.2006: 203-219 Issues in the Classification of Kinship Terminologies Toward a New Typology David B. Kronenfeld Abstract. - Kinship terms - like words in other domains - are part of the general semantic system of contrastive sense an d reference while encoding pragmatic conceptualizations of a Particular substantive domain. A good classification of types °f terminology takes account of intrinsic structure in the cate- jterized world - for words, both semantic and pragmatic struc- re - while enabling clean and effective analytic statements e at ing to given theoretical goals. For data universes which are fairly well-understood and which have received theoretical atte ntion, revised and improved data categorizations may offer ^Powerful and effective means for the refinement of theory. lf iship terminology, semantics, pragmatics, typology, alter- ativ e systems] -id B. Kronenfeld, Ph.D., Prof, of Anthropology, Universi- n - California at Riverside. - Research interests include cog- Ve anthropology, the semantics of natural language, social ganization, ethnicity, and kinship. His approach to social and teinologicai issues reflects an underlying concern with the in i‘ tive co< ding and social distribution of relevant knowledge; q 18 work he joins a concern with functional and historical for Stl ° ns t0 an appreciation of the explicitness offered by C ql a analytic techniques. His current research focus concerns the ^ as s y stem of distributed cognition which enables ? Ubr ntelleCtUa l aS we ^ as the economic division of labor. - c 0 ICa tions include numerous articles on kinship, semantics, ltWe ant b ro P°l°gy, and society. He edited and annotated °f H. Gould’s “A New System for the Formal Analysis lns bip” (Lanham 2000) and guest edited a special issue of k r °pological Theory (June 2001) on “Kinship.” - See also fences Cited. Production the assignment of individual (and, for mately ’ unic l ue ) events t° categories is crucial an Y kind of analysis. A coherent and complete system of contrasting categories into which events can be sorted is called a typology. A good typology is one that takes account of what structure we find in the natural world, while enabling clean and effective analytic statements relating to a given theoretical goal. Such a typology captures the distinctions and uniformities that are basic to the analysis in a form appropriate to the analysis, and thus to the theory on which the analysis is based. Effective typologies are thus in part theory dependent, and hence, different analytic goals may require different typologies - even when the same events are being classified. Typologies are conceptual tools that we analysts create to aid our work; they are not judged as “true” or “false,” but, rather, are evaluated according to their usefulness. The closer a classification comes to “cutting nature at the joints” the better it seems, and the more likely its organization is to help lead analysts to theoretically important entities and relations. In a well-understood theoretical universe such as nuclear physics, organized interrelated sets of categories such as “proton,” “neutron,” “elec tron,” “charge,” “ion,” “nucleus,” “atomic num ber,” “mass,” etc. flow naturally from theory. But theories do not emerge full-blown in the minds of analysts. They come from a process of observ ing events, collecting data within some tentative categories, trying out tentative conclusions on that data, and then revising the categories, the proposi tions on which the conclusions were based, and/or the range and manner of data collection in order to improve the fit. For data universes which are

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

fullscreen: Anthropos, 101.2006+Ind.1906-2005(CD-ROM)

Zeitschrift

Zeitschriftenband

Zeitschriftenheft

Zeitschriftenartikel

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung