Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:49:28.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer Analysis of Skewed Kinship Terminologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

David B. Kronenfeld
David B. Kronenfeld*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Significant insights into the organization of kinship terminologies, and into methods for their analysis, have resulted from the construction of a computer program that reduces the ranges of kin-terms to kernel kin-types, identifies the operable equivalence rules, and uses the identified rules and kernels to re-expand the full range of the kin-terms. The program is based on the work of Romney and of Lounsbury, and has been run successfully on a number of terminologies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1976, pp. 891 - 918
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aberle, David. 1953. The kinship system of the Kalmuk Mongols. (University of New Mexico publications in anthropology, 8.) Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Bendix, E. H. 1966. Componential analysis of general vocabulary: the semantic structure of a set of verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. (Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, publication 41.) Bloomington.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1972. Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. Language in Society 1. 51–86.10.1017/S0047404500006540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent., and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Casson, Ronald W. 1972. The contextual usage of kinship terms: a theoretical framework and an analysis of Turkish data. In Gladwin and Kronenfeld (to appear).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kingsley, and Warner, W. Lloyd. 1937. Structural analysis of kinship. AA 39. 291–313.Google Scholar
Dorsey, J. O. 1884. Omaha sociology. Annual Reports, Bureau of American Ethnology, 3. 205–307.Google Scholar
Gladwin, Hugh, and Kronenfeld, D. B. (eds.) 1972. Formal semantic models in kinship: papers from the Mathematical Social Science Board's Advanced Research Seminar in the Formal Analysis of Kinship, Riverside, California, December 17–20. To appear.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1956. Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Lg. 32. 195–216.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1949. Logical analysis of kinship. Philosophy of Science 16. 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hammel, E. A. 1965a. Formal semantic analysis, ed. by …, (American Anthropologist special publication, 67:5, part 2.) Menasha.Google Scholar
Hammel, E. A. 1965b. An algorithm for Crow-Omaha solutions. In Hammel 1965a :118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1951. Structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kreps, Theodora C. 1964. Computer analysis of Uto-Aztecan kinship systems. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1909. Classificatory systems of relationship. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 39. 77–84.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B. 1973. Fanti kinship: the structure of terminology and behavior. AA 75. 1577–95.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B. 1975. Kroeber v. Radcliffe-Brown on kinship behavior: the Fanti test case. Man n.s. 10. 257–84.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B. MS. Labelling, behavior and thought: evidence from Fanti kinship.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B., and Gladwin, Hugh, 1972. Introduction. In Gladwin & Kronenfeld 1972 (to appear).Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David B., and Kronenfeld, Jerrold E. 1971. What a Fanti needs to know in order to treat a kinsman correctly. Paper presented at the Mathematical Social Science Board Conference on Natural Decision Making, Palo Alto, California, December.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956. A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Lg. 32. 158–94.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964a. The structural analysis of kinship semantics. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists, 1073–90. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Cognitive anthropology, ed. by S. Tyler, 193–212. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.]Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964b. A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. Explorations in cultural anthropology, ed. by Goodenough, W. H., 351–93. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1965. Another view of Trobriand kinship categories. In Hammel 1965a:142–85.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1969. Language and culture. Language and philosophy: a symposium, ed. by Hook, Sidney, 3–29. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. 1870. Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 17. 1–590.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1941. The study of kinship systems. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 71. 1–18. [Reprinted in his Structure and function in primitive society, 49–89. New York: Free Press, 1965.]Google Scholar
Romney, A. Kimball. 1965. Kalmuk Mongol and the classification of lineal kinship terminologies. In Hammel 1965a:127–41.Google Scholar
Romney, A. Kimball, and D'Andrade, R. G. 1964. Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. Trans-cultural studies in cognition, ed. by Romney, A. K. & D'Andrade, R. G. (American Anthropologist special publication; 66:3, part 2), 146–70. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1965. American kin terms for kinsmen: a critique of Good-enough's componential analysis of Yankee kinship terminology. In Hammel 1965a:288–308.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1967. Descent and filiation as cultural constructs. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23. 65–73.10.1086/soutjanth.23.1.3629294CrossRefGoogle Scholar