Kinship is a fundamental feature and basis of human societies. We describe a set of computational tools and services, and the logic that underlies these, developed to improve how we understand both the fundamental facts of kinship and how people use kinship as a resource in their lives. Mathematical formalism applied to cultural concepts is more than an exercise in model building, as it provides a way to represent and explore their logical consistency and implications. Not surprisingly, kinship terminologies are particularly amenable to formal representation. Researchers throughout the history of kinship studies have noted the logicality of kinship terminology systems. The logic is explored here through the kin term computations made by users of a terminology when computing the kinship relation one person has to another by referring to a third person for whom each has a kin term relationship. Kinship Algebra Modeler provides a set of tools, services, and an architecture to explore kinship terminologies and their properties in an accessible manner.
BehrensC. (1984). Shipibo ecology and economy (PhD Dissertation). UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
2.
BennardoG.ReadD. W. (2005). Tongan Kinship Terminology: Insights from an Algebraic Analysis. Mathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory.
3.
BennardoG.ReadD. (2007). Cognition, algebra, and culture in the Tongan kinship terminology. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7, 49–88.
4.
BensonN. J.AnglinJ. M. (1987). The child's knowledge of English kin terms. First Language, 7, 41–66.
5.
BuchlerI.FischerM. D. (1984). Comment on “An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology”. Current Anthropology, 25, 417–449.
6.
BurridgeK. O. L. (1959/1960). Siblings in Tangu. Oceania, 30, 127–154.
7.
CarstenJ., ed. (2000). Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65627-3
8.
ChomskyN. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
LeafM. J. (1971). The Panjabi Kinship terminology as a semantic system. American Anthropologist, 73, 545–554.
11.
LeafM. J. (1979). Man, mind and science: A history of anthropology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
12.
LeafM. (2006). Experimental analysis of kinship. Ethnology, 45, 305–330.
13.
LeafM. J. (2009). Social organization and social theory. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
14.
LeafM.ReadD. (2012). The conceptual foundation of human society and thought: Anthropology on a new plane. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
15.
LuongH. V. (1986). Language, cognition, and ontogenetic development: A reexamination of Piaget's premises. Ethos, 14, 7–46.
16.
MarshallL. (1976). The !Kung of nyae nyae. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
MilicicB. (2010). Is there a kinship module? Evidence from children's acquisition of kinship terms in Pitumarca, Peru. In JonesD.MilicicB. (Eds.), Kinship, prehistory and language: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies (pp. 212–221). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
18.
MillJ. S. (1843 [1950]). Philosophy of scientific method. Containing the text of A System of Logic, 1843. Edited with an Introduction byNagelErnest. New York, NY: Haffner.
19.
MorganL. H. (1871). Systems of consanguinity and affinity in the human family. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institute.
20.
Price-WilliamsD.HammondO.EdgertonC.WalkerM. (1978). Kinship concepts among rural Hawaiian children. In DasenP. (Ed.), Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions (pp. 296–334). New York, NY: Gardner Press.
21.
ReadD. (1974). Kinship algebra: A mathematical study of kinship structure. In BallonoffP. (Ed.), Genealogical mathematics (pp. 135–161). The Hague: Mouton Press.
22.
ReadD. (1984). An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology. Current Anthropology, 25, 417–449.
23.
ReadD. (2001). What is kinship? In FeinbergR.OttenheimerM. (Eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David Schneider and its implications for anthropological relativism (pp. 78–117). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24.
ReadD. (2002). Mathematical modeling issues in analytical representations of human societies. Cybernetics and Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 408–410). Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
25.
ReadD. (2006). Kinship Algebra Expert System (KAES): A software implementation of a cultural theory. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 43–67.
26.
ReadD. (2007). Kinship theory: A paradigm shift. Ethnology, 46, 329–364.
ReadD. (2010). The generative logic of Dravidian language terminologies. Mathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, 3. Retrieved August 6, 2012, fromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/7dc0m5jj
29.
ReadD. (2012). How culture makes us human: Primate social evolution and the formation of human societies. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
30.
ReadD. (n.d.). A new approach to forming a typology of kinship terminology systems: From Morgan and Murdock to the present. Manuscript in possession of author.
31.
ReadD.BehrensC. (1990). KAES: An expert system for the algebraic analysis of kinship terminologies. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 2, 353–393.
32.
ReadD.FischerM. D. (2004). KAES—Kinship Algebra Expert System. Canterbury: CSAC Monographs. Retrieved August 6, 2012, fromhttp://kaes.anthrosciences.net
33.
ReadD.FischerM.LehmanF. (In press). The Cultural Grounding of Kinship: A Paradigm Shift. In BarryL.HambergerK.HousemanM. (eds.) La parenté en débat. Paris: Editions de l'EHESS.
34.
SchieffelinE. L. (1976). The sorrow of the lonely and the burning of the dancers. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
35.
SchneiderD. M. (1969). Componential Analysis, A state of the art review. Symposium on Cognitive Studies and Artificial Intelligence Research, March 2–8, Center for Continuing Education, University of Chicago, IL.
36.
SchneiderD. M. (1987). A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37.
WallaceA. F.AtkinsJ. (1960). The Meaning of Kinship Terms. American Anthropologist, 62, 58–80.
