The discovery of general patterns and their subsequent explanation is a familiar method in linguistics and other cross-cultural research. This article addresses the computerized enumeration of significant cultural and linguistic patterns, specifically implicational universals. We dispute published suggestions that the mechanical generation of universals is inadvisable by arguing that such claims do not distinguish clearly the noticing of a pattern with its explanation. We make use of a simple, principled method that uses permutation tests to estimate whether the discovered universals are significant. Finally, these methods are used to mine the rich kinship data set contributed by G. P. Murdock in 1970 and to report 15 universals found therein.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Burton, M. L., Brudner, L. A.,& White, D. R. (1977). A model of the sexual division of labor. American Ethnologist, 4, 227-251.
2.
Cannon, G. (1991). Jones’ “Sprung from some common source.” In S. M. Lamb& E. D. Mitchell (Eds.), Sprung from some common source: Investigations into the prehistory of languages (pp. 23-47). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
D’Andrade, R. G. (1976). A propositional analysis of U.S. American beliefs about illness. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 155-180). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
5.
Good, P. (1994). Permutation tests. New York: Springer Verlag.
6.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals (with special reference to feature hierarchies). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
7.
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). Typologies and cross-linguistic generalizations. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (Vol. 1, pp. 33-59). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Greenberg, J. H. (1980). Universals of kinship terminology: Their nature and the problem of their explanation. In J. Maquet (Ed.), On linguistic anthropology: Essays in honor of Harry Hoijer (pp. 9-32). Malibu, CA: Udena Publications.
9.
Grimes, B. F. (Ed.) (1996) Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Thirteenth Edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
10.
Hurford, J. (1977). The significance of linguistic generalizations. Language, 53 (3), 574-620.
11.
Murdock. G. P. (1970). Kin term patterns and their distribution. Ethnology, 9, 165-207.
12.
Pericliev, V., & Valdés-Pérez, R. E. (1998). Automatic componential analysis of kinship semantics with a proposed structural solution to the problem of multiple models. Anthropological Linguistics, 40, 272-317.
13.
Segal, E. S. (1983). The structure of division of labor. Behavior Science Research, 18, 3-25.
14.
Simon, H. A. (1977). On judging the plausibility of theories. In Models of discovery (pp. 25-45). Boston: Reidel.
15.
Valdés-Pérez, R. E. (1995, Fall). Some recent human/computer discoveries in science and what accounts for them. AI Magazine, 16 (3), 37-44.
16.
Valdés-Pérez, R. E. (1996). Computer science research on scientific discovery. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11 (1), 57-66.
17.
Valdés-Pérez, R. E., & Pericliev, V. (1997). Maximally parsimonious discrimination: A generic task from linguistic discovery. In Proceedings of 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 515-520). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
18.
Valdés-Pérez, R. E., & Pericliev, V. (1998). Concise, intelligible, and approximate profiling of numerous classes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
White, D. R. (1996). Statistical entailments and the galois lattice. Social Networks, 18, 201-215.
20.
White, D. R., Burton, M. L., & Brudner, L. A. (1977). Entailment theory and method: Across cultural analysis of the sexual division of labor. Behavior Science Research, 12 (1), 1-24.
21.
Winkelman, M. J. (1986). Magico-religious practitioner types and socioeconomic conditions. Behavior Science Research, 20, 17-46.
