Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 11:1 (2024) ► pp.1–30

The moral grammar of marriage rules

 | University of Utah
According to theories of “moral grammar,” judgments of what is wrong or right – like judgments of what is ungrammatical or grammatical – are guided by implicit, often unconscious rules. An ideal test case for exploring the parallels between moral rules and language rules is the moral regulation of mating in relation to kinship. Here I argue that combinatorial variation in both kin terminologies and marriage rules results from the operation of a grammar faculty, which juggles tradeoffs between conflicting constraints according to the principles of “Optimality Theory.” This works to produce kinship grammars, input-output systems that map some kin types onto others via mergers and reductions. This in turn can yield marriage rules. If a kin type maps onto a close consanguine, this corresponds to a marriage proscription. If a kin type maps onto a close affine, this corresponds to a marriage prescription/preference. I analyze both elementary structures of kinship (where cross kin are prescribed spouses, and parallel kin are proscribed; e.g. Dravidian southern India) and complex structures (where kin are divided into an unmarriageable core and a marriageable periphery, and affines are sometimes tabooed because they are equated with close consanguines; e.g. Jane Austen’s England). Rather than treating social organization as the source of mental categories, this analysis starts with the machinery of categorization and shows how it spontaneously generates marriage rules. The result is an updating of structuralism in light of cognitive science: moral codes vary within limits set by fundamental structures of the human mind.
Keywords: incest, kinship, kin terms, marriage rules, moral grammar
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Birth of the cool: Language rules, moral rules, marriage rules
    • Evolutionary psychology
    • Social functions
  • From kinship grammar to marriage rules
  • Dravidian kinship: Classifying consanguines and affines
  • Marriage rules, Dravidian and beyond
    •  
  • Austenites and others: Core and peripheral kin in language and life
    •  
  • Conclusion: Good to think
  • Data availability
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00060.jon
References (60)
References
Borg, J. S., Lieberman, D., & Kiehl, K. (2008). Infection, incest, and iniquity: Investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(9), 1529–1546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). The emergnce of the unmarked pronoun. In G. Legendre, S. Vikner, and J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, (pp. 113–142). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (1991). Human Universals. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Busby, C. (1997). Of marriage and marriageability: Gender and Dravidian kinship. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3(1), 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2007). Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cressy, D. (1986). Kinship and kin interaction in early modern England. Past and Present, 1131, 38–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dumont, L. (1953). The Dravidian kinship terminology as an expression of merriage. Man, 531, 34–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farber, B. (1970). Heider’s “Anthropological models of incest laws in the United States”: A comment. American Anthropologist, 72(4), 846–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godelier, M., Trautmann, T. R., & Tjon Sie Fat, F. E. (1998). Transformations of Kinship. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. (1965). Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. American Anthropologist, 1967(5), 259–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1967). Componential analysis. Science, 671, 1203–1209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. H. (2000). A New System for the Formal Analysis of Kinship. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1990). Universals of kinship terminology: Their nature and the problem of their explanation. In K. Denning and S. Kemmer (Eds.), On language: Selected Writings of Joseph Greenberg, (pp. 310–327). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Somerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hage, P. (2001). Marking theory and kinship analysis. Anthropological Theory, 11, 197–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heider, K. (1969). Anthropological models of incest laws in the United States. American Anthropologist, 71(4), 693–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Héritier, F. (1999). Two Sisters and their Mother: The Anthropology of Incest. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Hill, K. (2009). Animal “culture”? In K. Laland and B. G. Galef (Eds.), The Question of Animal Culture, (pp. 269–287). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogeweg, L. n. d. Optimality Theoretic Lexical Semantics [URL]
Jay, T. (1999). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (2010). Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(5), 367–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Socially enforced nepotism: How norms and reputation can amplify kin altruism. PLoS ONE, 111, e0155596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Kinship in mind: Three approaches. In W. Shapiro (Ed.), Focality and Extension in Kinship: Essays in Memory of Harold Sheffler, (pp. 343–367). Australian National University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Yet another view of Trobriand kin categories, from optimality to conceptual structure. Kinship 2(1). [URL]
Kemp, C., & Regier, T. (2012). Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles. Science, 3361, 1049–1054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1909). Classificatory systems of relationship. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 391, 77–84.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2004). Definitions of cross versus parallel: Implications for a new typology (an appreciation of A. Kimball Romney). Cross-Cultural Research, 38(3), 249–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Issues in the classification of kinship terminologies: Toward a new typology. Anthropos, January, 203–219.Google Scholar
Kuper, A. (2009). Incest and Influence: The Private Life of Bourgeois England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leaf, M., & Read, D. (2014). Human Thought and Social Organization: Anthropology on a New Plane. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Lehman, F. K. (2001). Aspects of a formalist theory of kinship: The functional basis of its genealogical roots and some extensions in generalized alliance theory. Anthropological Theory, 1(2), 212–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. (1969). Translated by R. Needham. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, 2701, 819–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The archtecture of human kin detection. Nature, 4451, 727–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, F. (1964a). The formal analysis of Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. In W. Goodenough (Ed.), Explorations in Cultural Anthropology (pp. 351–393). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(1964b). The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In H. G. Hunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics (pp. 1073–1093). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2004). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass, 41, 1000–1018. (pp. 1073–1093). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikhail, J. (2011). Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1941). The study of kinship systems. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Briatain and Ireland, 71(1/2), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, D. (1984). An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology. Current Anthropology, 25(4), 417–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The generative logic of Dravidian language terminologies. Mathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory: An International Journal, 3(7), 27 pages.Google Scholar
Read, D. & Behrens, C. (1990). KAES: An expert system for the algebraic analysis of kinship terminologies. Journal of Quantiative Anthropology, 21, 353–393.Google Scholar
Romney, A. K., & D’Andrade, R. G. (1964). Cognitive aspects of English kinship. American Anthropologist, 671, 146–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudner, D. (1990). Inquest on Dravidian kinship: Louis Dumont and the essence of marriage alliance. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 241, 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schapera, I. (1977). Kinship Terminology in Jane Austen’s Novels. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.Google Scholar
Scheffler, H. W. (2020). Australian Kin Classification. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1977). Kinship and alliance in south India and Australia. American Anthropologist, 79(4), 869–882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tadmor, N. (2001). Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship and Patronage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Language, Speech, and Communication): Concept Structuring Systems (Volume 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 941, 1395–1415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, T. R. Dravidian Kinship. (1981). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westermarck, E. (1921). The History of Human Marriage, Vol. 21. New York: Allerton.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S. (1987). In-laws and Outlaws: Kinship and Marriage in England. London and Sydney: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. P. (2014). Incest Avoidance and the Incest Taboos: Two Aspects of Human Nature. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2019). Competition between word meanings: The polysemy of (a)round. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 81, 349–360.Google Scholar