The Experts below are selected from a list of 255 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Dwight W. Read - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
THE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA Kinship Terminology AS A CASE STUDY
2018Co-Authors: Dwight W. ReadAbstract:Author(s): Read, Dwight W | Abstract: The goal of the paper is to show how the generative logic approach to Kinship Terminology structures sheds light on the basis for the skewing that characterizes the Crow-Omaha terminologies. The generative logic of the Omaha Terminology of the Thonga-Ronga of southern Africa is examined in detail and the skewing in this Terminology is found to occur as a consequence of having a set of male generating terms for the male kin terms, but only female self for the female kin terms. This contrasts sharply with the Omaha Terminology of the Fox Indians for which the skewing is the result of a deleting the cross-cousin kin terms from an Iroquois Terminology. The results obtained here underscore the need to consider the skewing associated with the Crow-Omaha terminologies from the perspective of the generative logic of Kinship terminologies.
-
READ’S REPLY TO COMMENTS ONTHE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA Kinship Terminology AS A CASE STUDY
2018Co-Authors: Dwight W. ReadAbstract:Author(s): Read, Dwight W | Abstract: The seven commentators, Thomas Trautmann, Peter Whiteley, Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, Klaus Hamberger, and Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, have provided wide-ranging and important observations that go beyond the specifics of my text and bring to the discussion important issues that relate to our understanding of the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Their comments alone provide a major contribution to the discourse on the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Accordingly, my response to their comments focuses on ways that the structural analysis I presented of the Thongan Kinship Terminology relates to this broader discussion.I have divided my reply into seven parts: (1) Relationship of Abstract Algebras to Kinship Terminologies, (2) Other Methodologies: Thick Description, Equivalence Rules, Description and Extension, (3) Ethnographic Issues Relating to The Algebraic Representation, (4) Comments by Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, and Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, (5) The Formalism Issues Raised by Klaus Hamberger, (6) The Formalism Issues Raised by Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, and (7) Conclusion -- Why Does Nwana(‘Son’) oMalume(‘Mother’s Brother’) = Malume?
-
read s reply to comments onthe generative logic of crow omaha terminologies the thonga ronga Kinship Terminology as a case study
Mathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, 2018Co-Authors: Dwight W. ReadAbstract:Author(s): Read, Dwight W | Abstract: The seven commentators, Thomas Trautmann, Peter Whiteley, Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, Klaus Hamberger, and Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, have provided wide-ranging and important observations that go beyond the specifics of my text and bring to the discussion important issues that relate to our understanding of the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Their comments alone provide a major contribution to the discourse on the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Accordingly, my response to their comments focuses on ways that the structural analysis I presented of the Thongan Kinship Terminology relates to this broader discussion.I have divided my reply into seven parts: (1) Relationship of Abstract Algebras to Kinship Terminologies, (2) Other Methodologies: Thick Description, Equivalence Rules, Description and Extension, (3) Ethnographic Issues Relating to The Algebraic Representation, (4) Comments by Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, and Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, (5) The Formalism Issues Raised by Klaus Hamberger, (6) The Formalism Issues Raised by Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, and (7) Conclusion -- Why Does Nwana(‘Son’) oMalume(‘Mother’s Brother’) = Malume?
-
Kinship, Formal Models of
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2015Co-Authors: Dwight W. ReadAbstract:Kinship involves social interactions and forms of social organization based on systems of culturally constructed social relations expressed linguistically through the kin terms constituting a Kinship Terminology. The organization and structure for these social relations expressed in a Kinship Terminology is formally modeled here as being part of an axiomatic theory in which a few, primary Kinship concepts are the equivalent of axioms in a mathematical theory. The cultural knowledge embedded in a Kinship Terminology therefore is part of a cultural theory – analogous to a mathematical theory – that expresses the culturally salient Kinship properties derived from the primary Kinship concepts.
-
Kinship Terminologies, Hypothetical or Extant, Are Optimal Solutions
2014Co-Authors: Michael Fischer, Murray J. Leaf, Dwight W. ReadAbstract:The claim that extant terminologies are optimal solutions in a space of all possible terminologies depends on invalidly assuming any partition of a set of genealogical relations is a possible Kinship Terminology. Instead, Kinship terminologies have a particular type of logical/formal structure that is generative with categories providing for classification that is reciprocal. As a consequence, all terminologies, extant or hypothetical, are optimal solutions in the sense this term is used in the claim made about Kinship terminologies.
Murray J. Leaf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Kinship Terminologies, Hypothetical or Extant, Are Optimal Solutions
2014Co-Authors: Michael Fischer, Murray J. Leaf, Dwight W. ReadAbstract:The claim that extant terminologies are optimal solutions in a space of all possible terminologies depends on invalidly assuming any partition of a set of genealogical relations is a possible Kinship Terminology. Instead, Kinship terminologies have a particular type of logical/formal structure that is generative with categories providing for classification that is reciprocal. As a consequence, all terminologies, extant or hypothetical, are optimal solutions in the sense this term is used in the claim made about Kinship terminologies.
-
human thought and social organization anthropology on a new plane
2012Co-Authors: Murray J. Leaf, Dwight W. ReadAbstract:Acknowledgments Orthography and Notation List of Figures and Tables Preface 1. Introduction 2. Assumptions 3. The Organizational Rubicon of the Upper Paleolithic 4. Fundamentals of Human Social Organization 5. Elicitation of Kinship Terminology Structure 6. Theory of Kinship Terminology Structures 7. Construction of a Kinship Algebra Model 8. Kin Terminology and Social Structure: The Kariera Case 9. Formal Algebraic Construction of the Kariera Terminology 10. The Physical Farm Budget: a Social Charter 11. Idea-Systems and Communication Theory 12. Conclusion References Index About the Authors
-
Pragmatic and positivistic analyses of Kinship Terminology
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2010Co-Authors: Murray J. LeafAbstract:Jones' article suggests that the anthropological analysis of Kinship has followed a single line of development based on a single underlying conception of meaning and method. In fact, there have been two opposed lines of development. Jones' conception is positivistic. The other is pragmatic. Pragmatic theory is superior on every recognized criterion. This briefly describes the differences.
Giovanni Bennardo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Frames of Reference and Kinship Terminology Systems
Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of the Anthropological and Related Sciences, 2016Co-Authors: Giovanni BennardoAbstract:Author(s): Bennardo, Giovanni | Abstract: The content of the spatial relationships module has been extensively studied and a fundamental part of such content is the concept of frame of reference; that is, a set of coordinates that generates an oriented space within which relationships between objects are established. There are three major types (and six subtypes) of frames of reference: the relative, the intrinsic, and the absolute. The content of the spatial relationships module has been proposed as being foundational to the development of both language and cognition. In this work I explore the possibility that the various types of frame of reference participate in the construction of the basic patterns of the Kinship Terminology systems: descriptive-Sudanese, bifurcate merging-Iroquois (also Crow and Omaha), classificatory and/or generational-Hawaiian (also classificatory-Dravidian), and lineal-Eskimo.
-
Cognition, Algebra, and Culture in the Tongan Kinship Terminology
Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2007Co-Authors: Dwight Read, Giovanni BennardoAbstract:AbstractWe present an algebraic account of the Tongan Kinship Terminology (TKT) that provides an insightful journey into the fabric of Tongan culture. We begin with the ethnographic account of a social event. e account provides us with the activities of that day and the centrality of kin relations in the event, but it does not inform us of the conceptual system that the participants bring with them. Rather, it is a slice in time of an ongoing dynamic process that links behavior with a conceptual system of kin relations and vice versa. To understand this interplay, we need an account of the underlying conceptual system that is being activated during the event. Thus, we introduce a formal, algebraically based account of TKT. is account brings to the fore the underlying logic of TKT and allows us to distinguish between features of the Kinship system that arise from the logic of TKT as a generative structure and features that must have arisen through cultural intervention.
-
TONGAN Kinship Terminology: INSIGHTS FROM AN ALGEBRAIC ANALYSIS
2005Co-Authors: Giovanni Bennardo, Dwight W. ReadAbstract:We present an algebraic account of the Tongan Kinship Terminology (TKT) that provides an insightful journey into the fabric of Tongan society. We begin with the ethnographic account of a social event. The account provides us with the activities of that day and the centrality of kin relations in the event, but it does not inform us of the underlying logic for the conceptual system of kin relations that the participants bring with them. Rather, it is a slice in time of an ongoing dynamic process that links behavior with kin and kin with behavior. To fully understand this interplay we need to account for the structure underlying their conceptual system of kin relations that is being activated during the event. Thus, we introduce a formal, algebraically based account of TKT as a way to make evident what is otherwise “hidden” logic. This account brings to the fore the underlying logic of TKT and the features of TKT that are a consequence of that logic. This also allows us to distinguish between structural features of the Kinship system that arise from the logic of TKT versus features that must have arisen through the intervention of, or intersection with, other cultural conceptual systems. Finally, we revisit the ethnographic account and we consider those aspects whose explication must lie in other cultural interventions, thus linking the Kinship conceptual system to other conceptual domains such as ranking and inheritance.
Dwight Read - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cognition, Algebra, and Culture in the Tongan Kinship Terminology
Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2007Co-Authors: Dwight Read, Giovanni BennardoAbstract:AbstractWe present an algebraic account of the Tongan Kinship Terminology (TKT) that provides an insightful journey into the fabric of Tongan culture. We begin with the ethnographic account of a social event. e account provides us with the activities of that day and the centrality of kin relations in the event, but it does not inform us of the conceptual system that the participants bring with them. Rather, it is a slice in time of an ongoing dynamic process that links behavior with a conceptual system of kin relations and vice versa. To understand this interplay, we need an account of the underlying conceptual system that is being activated during the event. Thus, we introduce a formal, algebraically based account of TKT. is account brings to the fore the underlying logic of TKT and allows us to distinguish between features of the Kinship system that arise from the logic of TKT as a generative structure and features that must have arisen through cultural intervention.
Ruth Mace - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Phylogenetic Comparative Study of Bantu Kinship Terminology Finds Limited Support for Its Co-Evolution with Social Organisation.
PloS one, 2016Co-Authors: Myrtille Guillon, Ruth MaceAbstract:The classification of kin into structured groups is a diverse phenomenon which is ubiquitous in human culture. For populations which are organized into large agropastoral groupings of sedentary residence but not governed within the context of a centralised state, such as our study sample of 83 historical Bantu-speaking groups of sub-Saharan Africa, cultural Kinship norms guide all aspects of everyday life and social organization. Such rules operate in part through the use of differing terminological referential systems of familial organization. Although the cross-cultural study of Kinship Terminology was foundational in Anthropology, few modern studies have made use of statistical advances to further our sparse understanding of the structuring and diversification of terminological systems of Kinship over time. In this study we use Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods of phylogenetic comparison to investigate the evolution of Bantu Kinship Terminology and reconstruct the ancestral state and diversification of cousin Terminology in this family of sub-Saharan ethnolinguistic groups. Using a phylogenetic tree of Bantu languages, we then test the prominent hypothesis that structured variation in systems of cousin Terminology has co-evolved alongside adaptive change in patterns of descent organization, as well as rules of residence. We find limited support for this hypothesis, and argue that the shaping of systems of Kinship Terminology is a multifactorial process, concluding with possible avenues of future research.
