Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2014) 150–151 Copyright © 2013 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN:1756-8757 print / 1756-8765 online DOI: 10.1111/tops.12053
Does Cognitive Science Need Anthropology? Ian Keen School of Archaeology and Anthropology Australian National University
Cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics are relevant to anthropology in considering the role of language in the constitution of various aspects of sociality, such as institutions of property, number, and kinship. In these and other cases, the use of language in the framing of social relations and practices builds on cognitive underpinnings. Premack and Premack (1994) understand possession to involve the idea of a connection between a person and an object, their movement together, and the possessor’s control of the object. Heine (1997) argues, however, that linguistic constructions of possession are derived from a variety of cognitive schemas, including action, location, goal, existence, and “companion.” Building on such cognitive grounds, linguistic resources are used to identify the possessor and possessum, denote connections between them, and frame the deontological entailments of possession that distinguish varieties of possession relations within and between cultures (Keen, 2013). The cognitive bases of number systems, especially the three “core systems,” have been explored in some depth (e.g., Bender & Beller, 2011, 2012; Feigenson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004), as have linguistic aspects of number (e.g., Ionin & Matushansky, 2006). With some exceptions, however (e.g., Mimica, 1988), the anthropology of number is rather underdeveloped. Bender and Beller (2012) inquire into the cognitive implications of various modes of number representation, such as the reduction in the memory load afforded by external representations of numerosities. Such cognitive implications may be linked to sociality in terms of the powers conferred by such features (Keen, unpublished data). The body tallies of Miyanmin and Oksapmin peoples, for example, are associated with the exchange of relatively small numbers of goods for bridewealth and compensation for homicide, whereas the base-4/60 and base-2/4/8 counting systems of Enga and Melpa peoples are associated with the exchange of large numbers of shells, pigs, and other items, enumerated during exchange transactions (Strathern, 1977) and with concomitant extensive social networks.
Correspondence should be sent to Ian Keen, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: ian.keen@ anu.edu.au
I. Keen / Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2014)
151
Two potential areas for inquiry into the cognitive foundations of kinship are relational thinking (e.g., Doumas, Hummel, & Sandhofer, 2008), gradually mastered by children (e.g., Ragnarsd ottir, 1999), and spatial representations of kin-relational networks. Enfield (2005) has explored the latter in Laos, and there is evidence of two-dimensional visual representations of kin relations in other cultures (e.g., Dousset, 2008). Some psychological research (McGuinness, 1986) suggests that spatial representations enhance the ability to compute kin relations. These three brief examples suggest that the exploration of links between cognition, language, and sociality may be fruitful, and that we should not be too hasty in mourning the demise of cognitive anthropology. References Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2011). Numerical cognition and ethnomathematics. In D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. C. de Munck, & M. Fischer (Eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology (pp. 270–289). Chichester, England: Blackwell. Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2012). Nature and culture of finger counting: Diversity and representational effects of an embodied cognitive tool. Cognition, 124, 156–182. Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychology Review, 115(1), 1–43. Dousset, L. (2008). The ‘global’ versus the ‘local’: Cognitive processes of kin determination in Aboriginal Australia. Oceania, 78(3), 260–279. Enfield, Nicholas J. (2005). The Body as Cognitive Artifact in Kinship Representations: Hand Gesture Diagrams by Speakers of Lao. Current Anthropology, 46(1), 51–73. Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314. Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ionin, T., & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23, 315–360. Keen, I. (2013). The language of possession. Language in Society, 42(2), 187–214. McGuinness, C. (1986). Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays. Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 270–280. Mimica, J. (1988). Intimations of infinity: The mythopoeia of the Iqwaye counting system and number. Oxford, England: Berg. Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1994). Moral belief: Form versus content. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 149–168). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ragnarsdottir, H. (1999). The acquisition of past tense morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian children: An experimental study. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 577–618. Strathern, A. (1977). Mathematics in the Moka. Papua New Guinea Journal of Education, 13(1), 16–20.
Does Cognitive Science Need Anthropology? Ian Keen School of Archaeology and Anthropology Australian National University
Cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics are relevant to anthropology in considering the role of language in the constitution of various aspects of sociality, such as institutions of property, number, and kinship. In these and other cases, the use of language in the framing of social relations and practices builds on cognitive underpinnings. Premack and Premack (1994) understand possession to involve the idea of a connection between a person and an object, their movement together, and the possessor’s control of the object. Heine (1997) argues, however, that linguistic constructions of possession are derived from a variety of cognitive schemas, including action, location, goal, existence, and “companion.” Building on such cognitive grounds, linguistic resources are used to identify the possessor and possessum, denote connections between them, and frame the deontological entailments of possession that distinguish varieties of possession relations within and between cultures (Keen, 2013). The cognitive bases of number systems, especially the three “core systems,” have been explored in some depth (e.g., Bender & Beller, 2011, 2012; Feigenson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004), as have linguistic aspects of number (e.g., Ionin & Matushansky, 2006). With some exceptions, however (e.g., Mimica, 1988), the anthropology of number is rather underdeveloped. Bender and Beller (2012) inquire into the cognitive implications of various modes of number representation, such as the reduction in the memory load afforded by external representations of numerosities. Such cognitive implications may be linked to sociality in terms of the powers conferred by such features (Keen, unpublished data). The body tallies of Miyanmin and Oksapmin peoples, for example, are associated with the exchange of relatively small numbers of goods for bridewealth and compensation for homicide, whereas the base-4/60 and base-2/4/8 counting systems of Enga and Melpa peoples are associated with the exchange of large numbers of shells, pigs, and other items, enumerated during exchange transactions (Strathern, 1977) and with concomitant extensive social networks.
Correspondence should be sent to Ian Keen, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: ian.keen@ anu.edu.au
I. Keen / Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2014)
151
Two potential areas for inquiry into the cognitive foundations of kinship are relational thinking (e.g., Doumas, Hummel, & Sandhofer, 2008), gradually mastered by children (e.g., Ragnarsd ottir, 1999), and spatial representations of kin-relational networks. Enfield (2005) has explored the latter in Laos, and there is evidence of two-dimensional visual representations of kin relations in other cultures (e.g., Dousset, 2008). Some psychological research (McGuinness, 1986) suggests that spatial representations enhance the ability to compute kin relations. These three brief examples suggest that the exploration of links between cognition, language, and sociality may be fruitful, and that we should not be too hasty in mourning the demise of cognitive anthropology. References Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2011). Numerical cognition and ethnomathematics. In D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. C. de Munck, & M. Fischer (Eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology (pp. 270–289). Chichester, England: Blackwell. Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2012). Nature and culture of finger counting: Diversity and representational effects of an embodied cognitive tool. Cognition, 124, 156–182. Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychology Review, 115(1), 1–43. Dousset, L. (2008). The ‘global’ versus the ‘local’: Cognitive processes of kin determination in Aboriginal Australia. Oceania, 78(3), 260–279. Enfield, Nicholas J. (2005). The Body as Cognitive Artifact in Kinship Representations: Hand Gesture Diagrams by Speakers of Lao. Current Anthropology, 46(1), 51–73. Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314. Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ionin, T., & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23, 315–360. Keen, I. (2013). The language of possession. Language in Society, 42(2), 187–214. McGuinness, C. (1986). Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays. Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 270–280. Mimica, J. (1988). Intimations of infinity: The mythopoeia of the Iqwaye counting system and number. Oxford, England: Berg. Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1994). Moral belief: Form versus content. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 149–168). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ragnarsdottir, H. (1999). The acquisition of past tense morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian children: An experimental study. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 577–618. Strathern, A. (1977). Mathematics in the Moka. Papua New Guinea Journal of Education, 13(1), 16–20.
