New paper on Murrinhpatha children’s understanding of kinship lexicon and grammar (post by Dr Alice Mitchell)

Among the vast number of things children need to learn about language is how to appropriately refer to other people. One way to do this is to use kinship terms—words like ‘great-grandmother’, ‘brother-in-law’, or ‘sister’. The particular set of kinterms a child needs to know will obviously depend on the languages they’re learning to speak.


English-speaking children learn different words for mother and mother’s sister (‘aunt’), while speakers of many other languages learn a single term for these relatives.For example, in Murrinhpatha, a language spoken in Wadeye in Australia’s Northern Territory (see map), the word kale can refer to both mother and mother’s sister, among other relations. How do children figure out who can be grouped together under the label kale? From a broader perspective, how do children learn the kinship-related language used in their community?


A new open-access paper just published in Language, ‘Acquiring the lexicon and grammar of universal kinship’, explores this question in Murrinhpatha. The paper was authored by Joe Blythe (Macquarie University), Jeremiah Tunmuck (Yek Yederr), Alice Mitchell (University of Cologne), and Péter Rácz (Central European University). Alice and Peter joined the project while they were post-docs working on the Varikin project, having met Joe at a kinship workshop held at the MPI for Social Anthropology in Halle, Germany. Joe then visited the EXCD lab in January 2018 as a Benjamin Meaker Visiting Professor. After that their collaboration continued online across distant time zones.


One of the special things about Murrinhpatha kinterms is their ‘universal’ character, by which we mean that almost anyone in the community can be referred to with a kinterm. Working out how to refer to a newly introduced individual involves a kind of mental calculation based on telescoping chains of relatedness: if I know someone is my mother’s mother’s sister’s daughter, I can reduce that down to ‘mother’ and also refer to her as kale.[1] For Murrinhpatha people, information about kinship relations is so important that it’s expressed not just in vocabulary but also in the grammar of their language. In a sentence about two people doing something, part of the verb indicates whether those two people are siblings or not. For example, parraneriwakthadharra means, roughly, ‘They were following’, where it is grammatically specified that ‘they’ refers to two siblings.


Interested in how children learn this kind of kinship-related vocabulary and grammar, Joe designed two tasks: the ‘kinterms’ task, testing understanding of kinterms, and the ‘kintax’ task, testing understanding of the grammatical categories relating to kinship. In the kinterms task, Joe and Jeremiah showed children photos of their own relatives and asked them questions about kinship relations. There were three different types of questions: first, the researchers asked children straightforward questions, in Murrinhpatha, like ‘is this your cousin?’, where the children were expected to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The researchers then went through a new series of photos and asked children what they called the person in each photo. In the third part, children were asked what the person shown in the photo would call them. Other research has shown that young children often struggle to identify who they are from someone else’s perspective, so we expected this part of the task to be the hardest. This vocabulary-oriented task was carried out with 24 children aged between five and sixteen.


Unsurprisingly, older children performed better on this task. We didn’t see any great age-related breakthroughs but rather a gradual improvement in children’s understanding of kinterms. We also found evidence that closer kin are easier for children to classify. This result is fairly intuitive, too, but what is notable here is that children’s learning partly follows culture-specific ideas about the relative ‘closeness’ of kin: children made fewer mistakes labelling a parent’s same-sex sibling than a parent’s opposite-sex sibling. While these two kinship categories can be considered similarly ‘close’ from a genealogical perspective, the language differentiates them, categorising a parent’s same-sex sibling as a parent, while providing a different term for a parent’s opposite-sex sibling. Nonetheless, biological parents were the easiest of all to identify, emphasising the importance of ‘closeness’ for learning kinship concepts, whether defined genealogically, culturally, or experientially. Our results also supported earlier research in other languages that taking someone else’s perspective on kinship relations is cognitively challenging.


The second task targeted participant’s understanding of ‘kintax’. Children saw a brief animation of people doing something, e.g., waving. At the same time they heard a sentence describing the activity, where the verb in the sentence indicated whether the people were siblings or not. Children were then shown two photos of people in the community, one showing siblings and the other non-siblings, and children were asked to choose the appropriate photo (see right for an example slide).


They were also shown slides and heard similar sentences that tested the understanding of number and gender, so these contrasts could be compared to their understanding of siblinghood. Joe and Jeremiah conducted this task with 39 Murrinhpatha speakers ranging in age from five to 40 years old. The most important finding here was that children’s understanding of kinship grammar progresses at similar rates to other grammatical categories like participant gender and number. Based on results from both the tasks, a complex picture emerges in which linguistic categories, general cognitive abilities, cultural practice, and individual experience all play a role in learning kinship vocabulary and grammar.


This new study moves our field forward on several fronts. It presents the first quantitative investigation of the acquisition of an ever-expanding kinship system; it’s the first study to investigate children’s acquisition of kinship-related grammar; and it’s also innovative in the way it tailored the experimental stimuli to each participant’s own family. This design feature meant that responses were not always directly comparable, which in turn restricted the statistical power of our analysis. Nonetheless, our results showed that children build up a gradual understanding of kinship that focuses on their closest relatives and expands to others as they get older. This supports a ‘focal’ theory of kinship terms, where at least some kinship categories are built from central exemplars and then extend to include more peripheral members. While our approach measured what children know, the next step is to explore how children learn kinship terms—a question that will involve more qualitative methods.


As part of my fieldwork with Datooga-speaking children in Tanzania, I’ve been conducting similar studies of children’s understandings of kin terms. Watch this space for updates on more papers addressing this topic.


[1] For the curious, this works via what anthropologists call ‘merging’ principles: a mother’s mother’s sister is classified as a mother’s mother, and a mother’s mother’s daughter is classified as a mother.

Cross-disciplinary anthropology & biology workshop Part 1: Behaviour

Anthropology & Biology cross-disciplinary workshop part 1: Behavioural science

Organisers: Fiona Jordan & Arsham Nejad Kourki

University of Bristol | 9 September 2020

There is fascinating research on the evolution of behaviour in many disciplines across the University of Bristol, particularly in biology and anthropology. We’re hosting a workshop to bring together postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers whose research interests relate to this broad topic and we warmly invite you to take part. The aim of the workshop is to stimulate dialogue between the two disciplines at a local scale, so don’t worry if you don’t already know much about what your peers in others discipline are doing—come along to find out!

The workshop will be held online and will also be open to non-UoB folk: please email Arsham for a Zoom login.


Session 1 | 10:00-10:50

Arsham Nejad Kourki | Levels of Selection and Major Transitions in Sociocultural Evolution

João Pinheiro | Is Cooperating Always the Good?: Analysing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in Curry, Mullins & Whitehouse (2019)

Session 2 | 11:00-12:30

Terhi Honkola | Environment and Linguistic Divergence

Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder | Cultural group selection and the design of REDD+: insights from Pemba

Patrick Kennedy | Can you blackmail your relatives into altruism?

Lunch Break | 12:30-14:00

Session 3 | 14:00-14:50

Molly Beastall | The Effect of Socialisation on the Development of Pacific Beetle Cockroaches (Diploptera punctata)

Sarah Jelbert | Corvid cognition: Tool use in New Caledonian crows

Session 4 | 15:00-16:30

Innes Cuthill | Animal camouflage: evolutionary biology meets perceptual psychology

Tim Caro | Conspicuous coloration in mammals

Laszlo Talas | The cultural evolution of military camouflage

Closing Remarks | 16:20-16:30 | Fiona Jordan

We hope to hold Part 2: Phylogenies sometime later in the term, and will have a call for abstracts advertised in due course.

— Fiona & Arsham

The Grandparent Naming Survey

The Grandparent Naming Survey

Here at excd.lab we recently launched our Grandparent Naming Survey.  It’s being run by Jo Hickey-Hall, Research Support Assistant, as part of the Usage subproject for VariKin.

VariKin-Usage specifically investigates how people use kinship language by using corpus linguistics, surveys, and interviews to quantify patterns of usage in spoken and written language. How frequently are kinship terms used in different contexts and what meanings are more prevalent? Do patterns vary between languages, and can the patterns of usage at the individual level be linked to historical processes of change? 

In this survey, we’re asking people to share the different names they use for  their grandparents (e.g. Nan, Grandma) to help us better understand grandparental kinship relations within English-speaking families in the UK.

We’re interested in how styles of grandparenting may indicate emotional closeness and whether these are reflected in the different kin terms attributed to each grandparent. We are also particularly interested in whether kinds of relatedness can be determined by line of descent to the grandchild (eg. is there a difference in how mum’s mum relates to the grandchildren compared to dad’s dad etc).

It’s a difficult time for everyone at the moment, but many respondents are enjoying the opportunity to reflect on family relationships, especially thinking of their own grandparents or their children’s grandparents and we particularly want to hear from grandparents themselves!

Here is the link:

Please do take part and share with others.


Featured image: Jo’s ‘Nanny and Grandad’ circa 1943.

Postdoc position in cultural phylogenetics

Applications extended and closing May 22nd: please note extended project date to November 2020.

We’re hiring! If you have skills in phylogenetic comparative methods, and you’re keen to understand cultural and linguistic diversity, then we have a one-year postdoc position on our VariKin project. Here’s the job ad:

Applications are invited for a position of Postdoctoral Research Assistant with expertise in phylogenetic analysis of cultural data. The post is a PDRA position in a European Research Council Starting Grant project entitled “VariKin: Cultural Evolution of Kinship Diversity” led by Prof Fiona Jordan in the Department of Archaeology & Anthropology at the University of Bristol. We require an individual with expertise in phylogenetic comparative methods and the analysis of large linguistic and cultural datasets. The project team has amassed a large global database of kinship terms, and the objective for this role is to explore the cultural evolutionary dynamics and patterns of kinship terms.

The successful candidate will primarily be responsible for the design, implementation and analysis, and writing-up of two investigations. The post is offered on an open ended basis with fixed funding for 12 months. The project is due to come to an end November 30th 2020.

You will have a PhD in evolutionary approaches to biology, anthropology, or language, or a similar field. It is essential that you have skills in a range of phylogenetic comparative methods, particularly BayesTraits and relevant R packages. Phylogenetic inference skills to examine reticulation (e.g. NeighbourNet etc) may also be useful. Broad experience with quantitative and computational data analysis (preferably using R), and with parallel/cluster computing, is highly desirable. There will be an opportunity for further skills training. Preference will be given to candidates who have worked with cultural/linguistic datasets although this is not essential. You will require excellent organisational, communication and presentation skills. Experience with comparative data collection from written sources, database maintenance, and careful data curation are essential. You should demonstrate that you can engage in interdisciplinary collaborative work with the other VariKin team members. Your particular role will work closely alongside the PI and PhD student investigating kinship system evolution across cultures, but there is scope to contribute to other strands in the project (developmental field studies of children’s kinship knowledge, and cross-linguistic corpus analyses).

See the further particulars and apply through the UoB portal here. Please provide a cover letter that describes your skills and experience, your research interests, and details how you meet the criteria; and your current CV.

For informal enquiries please contact Fiona Jordan ( and see more of the project at

VariKin on the radio

Fiona recently gave an overview of the VariKin project for CoastFM and SourceFM in Cornwall. She talked to Ben Makin on his Celebrity Science show about our three projects on kinship term evolution and the KinBank database, kinship language usage, and fieldwork on acquisition by children. The conversation ranged further into speculation on how the language technology of kinship systems might play a part in human evolution, and how far back we can extend our knowledge of human kinship.

The show aired on Wednesday 28 Nov 2018 18:00 and Thursday 29 Nov  2018 07:30. It’s now available on YouTube and here’s the link to listen again.  Fiona’s interview starts 29:20.

Summer intern, Jasmine Calladine’s guest blog post

This summer I worked with Dr Alice Mitchell researching how person reference terms are used in child-directed speech in English. To do this we made use of the CHILDES database (example pictured below), a collection of transcriptions of children’s speech.  Instances of person reference were recorded and coded into five categories, kin terms, kin terms + name, name, noun phrase or pronoun.

An example of the CHILDES database. For more info see

We were particularly interested to see how adults used kinship terms, and whether they used their own perspective on the kinship relation or the child’s. Kin terms represented around a quarter of all person references in child-directed speech. Of these, the vast majority were anchored to the child’s perspective. Adults only rarely anchored kinship terms to their own perspective, and a small proportion of terms were anchored to a third person’s perspective, e.g. “Stefan’s Mummy”. This was most noticeable in the usage of kinterms as self-references. Adults would frequently refer to themselves by the kin term the child calls them, e.g. “Mummy’s going to the toilet, darling”. About half of all child-anchored kin terms were self-references, making this specific kin term usage one of the most frequent types.

There were also variations in the kin terms themselves. For example, the kin term “Mother” had several variations depending on country and the age of the child. “Mummy” was the most frequent term used by UK English speakers whereas American English speakers used “Mommy” the most. In kinterms relating to fathers, use of “Dada” was more likely to be found in corpora with younger children, whereas “Daddy” was used across a range of ages.

Whilst siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins were likely to come up in conversation, these relations tended to be referred to by name rather than by kin term. Names were the most frequent type of person reference. A surprising finding from this research was the amount of times fictional characters, either from TV shows or books were discussed. Out of the 492 instances of name references in the database, “Miffy” a cartoon rabbit was mentioned 42 times! Other popular characters included Winnie the Pooh and Dora the explorer. It is unclear whether fictional characters are this frequent in naturalistic child-directed speech, or whether this is a bias of the way the information was collected as many of the recordings were of play sessions, where toys of those characters triggered discussion.

After finishing data collection I had the chance in my final week of my internship to contribute to the CHIELD project (pictured below). The first two papers I coded were concerned with language acquisition in children. I found it really interesting to learn about what evolutionary mechanisms underpinned the patterns of child-directed speech I had noticed in the database, as well as learn about cultural differences in how adults spoke to their children. Outside of university, music is my main hobby, so having the chance to read about its evolution and its connection to human language was really eye opening. Learning what evolutionary mechanisms are needed to support each part of singing behaviour (i.e. rhythmic and melodic phrasing) and how they could be found in non-human animals was particularly interesting for me.

Section of Jasmine’s CHIELD contribution. For more info see
Summer Intern, Jasmine Calladine

My four weeks as a summer intern at excd were really enjoyable. I learnt so much in a short period of time. Getting to grips with the practical side of anthropology, through data collection, coding and analysis will be an incredibly useful foundation for next year of my degree. Seeing the range of research being done in the lab has given me plenty of ideas for dissertation topics!

Stats corner: is the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample really standard?

Post by Péter Rácz.

We use large cross-cultural datasets to test theories of cultural evolution. These tests face what is commonly referred to as “Galton’s problem” (see here for an elegant overview). Since cultural traits co-evolve (think historical linguistics) and are traded freely in close proximity (think Sprachbund effects), their co-variance will be partly explained by shared ancestry and geographic proximity.

This co-variance is interesting in itself, but many theories of cultural evolution seek to form generalisations about human nature. In such cases, Galton’s problem has to be accounted for. One way to do this is to use statistical methods that take co-variance into account. Another way is to use a dataset that samples societies across phylogenies and geographic regions in a representative way.

As an inconsequential exercise, I compare one such dataset, the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS), with another, larger, non-representative dataset, the Ethnographic Atlas (EA). I access these through the D-Place database. The SCCS contains 195 societies, the EA 1290 societies. All the societies in the former are also part of the latter. This allows me to compare them directly, using the 95 cross-cultural variables in the EA.

My question is: How much variation is explained in the EA by shared ancestry and geographic proximity? How much, if any, variation do these explain in the SCCS?

In order to make a comparison, I choose the 85 categorical variables in the EA. Using an arbitrary cutoff in category size, I filtered out those variables which have a large number of small categories or where the largest category is “absent” (i.e. most societies do not really have this specific cultural practice). This left 55 variables, covering 70,100 / 120,000 observations across the 1290 societies in the EA.

I fit a binomial mixed-effects regression model (using Douglas Bates’ lme4 package in R) on each of these variables, predicting whether a society is in the largest category, and estimating an intercept, as well as a random intercept for language family and one for geographic region in D-Place. If the distribution of the largest category for the variable does not co-vary with ancestry and proximity, such a model would have very little explanatory power. If it does, the model should explain some variation in the dataset. This variation can be expressed using r², the fraction of the variation in the response variable that is explained by the model. By proxy, the r² will indicate how much the entire categorical variable co-varies with language family and region — a simple estimate of cultural co-variation.

Since the societies in the SCCS are a proper subset of the societies in the EA, I can re-fit these models on the SCCS sample only. If the SCCS sample is more representative than the EA (which has no aspirations of the sort), I expect the r² values to go down: less variation should be explained by shared ancestry and geographic proximity.

The r²-s for the 55 relevant models across the two datasets can be seen below. Bearing in mind a number of caveats (variable coding is simplistic, language family is a poor approximation of phylogeny, the SCCS sample is smaller, etc.), this can give us a sense of how much co-variation is present in the two samples.

Family and region explain less variance in the SCCS than in the EA, as expected. But their effect is not negligible.

The point here is not at all to give an accurate estimation of co-variation in the SCCS or the EA. Rather, it is to encourage the use of more sophisticated statistical methods (unlike the ones used in this post) and to propagate discretion in the use of the SCCS, because human culture is more complicated than it seems.

(For data, code, and methods in graphic detail, go here.)

Overview of the CAKTAM Workshop January 2018

Overview of the CAKTAM Workshop January 2018

Notions of family and kin terms vary in complexity and structure, so to what extent does linguistic and cultural variation affect the acquisition of kinship knowledge? While kinship provides the major framework for social organisation in many societies, we still know very little about how children learn to categorise different kinds of kin.  The ‘Children’s Acquisition of Kinship Knowledge: Theory and Method Workshop’, led by EXCD lab of University of Bristol, provided a unique opportunity to explore and refine ideas in this largely overlooked area of research. Early-career researchers and distinguished academics alike, from anthropology, linguistics and psychology, gathered at The Engine Shed, Bristol in late January 2018, to propose theories and share in discussion. The result was a truly stimulating event.

Kicking off the two-day workshop, Professor Fiona Jordan’s introduction emphasised the EXCD lab’s interdisciplinary approach, highlighting the restricted variation of kinship systems, the question of ‘unthinkable families’ and the notable diversity of cousin systems around the world. Eve Danziger, Professor of Linguistic Anthropology at the University of Virginia, followed with a consideration of the syntactic and pragmatic parallels between kinship and spatial relationship terms, and their origins in “gesture-calls”. Using kinship acquisition data from her fieldwork with Mopan (Mayan) speakers, Eve showed how cultural elaboration of respect for elders complements the semantic feature “sex-of-senior”, producing cultural and cognitive consequences for sense of self.

Eve Clark, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, our second speaker of the day, offered interesting reflections on her pioneering 1974 study of the semantic complexity of kinship term acquisition using elicited definitions. This fresh perspective suggested further consideration should be given to children’s experience with kin terms in their communities, looking at both address and third-person reference.

Next, we heard from Bob Parkin, Emeritus Fellow of Oxford University’s School of Anthropology who considered the lack of current research on children’s learning of kinship within social anthropology. Bob’s presentation pointed towards the widespread anthropological objections to Malinowski’s extensionism, its unsuitability to all terminologies and its shortcomings as a universal theory of learning.  We then heard about infants’ observational learning skills from Tanya Broesch, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University. Tanya told us about learning from behavioural cues such as infant-directed speech, gestures, and facial expressions and how these cues aid interpretation of complex group member information such as defining friend or foe. The talk included an overview of Tanya’s multi-methods, cross-cultural approaches and her current data, collected via natural observation in multiple societies.

After lunch, a close analysis of the acquisition of kinship concepts in Australian Murrinhpatha-speaking communities followed, with interactional linguist Joe Blythe, of Macquarie University. Joe’s personalised experiments involved photos of individuals from each child’s genealogy, along with pre-recorded audio clips and stick figure animations, in order to determine children’s comprehension of kinterms. Leading on from this, EXCD team member, linguistic anthropologist Alice Mitchell of the University of Bristol, presented preliminary findings into kinship learning among Datooga children of Tanzania, as studied over nine months of fieldwork. Initial observations focused on child-anchored kin terms as a source of information for children. She then considered children’s understanding of the kin term for ‘mother’ and the apparent resistance to the use of word when referring to classificatory mothers.

As the afternoon progressed, we heard from Francis Mollica of The Computational & Language Laboratory, University of Rochester. Using a probabilistic Language of Thought model, Frank discussed simulations scrutinizing how simplicity, data distributions and assumptions about relatedness interface, giving rise to behavioural effects observed in children. These included a trajectory from under- to over-extension of kinship terms, and, in the case over over-extensions, the characteristic-to-defining shift.  The next presentation, by Annie Spokes from Harvard University’s Department of Psychology explored conceptual understanding of kinship as a social category and expectations for social interactions in 3-5 year old children in the US. She also examined how infants track relationships in care-giving networks within the first two years of life, forming expectations and early inferences about kin.

Julia Nee of the Department of Linguistics at Berkeley addressed us for the final session of the day via video-link. Julia’s field research with Teotitlan del Valle Zapotec speakers allowed her to examine whether languages show an optimization of complexity and communicative cost in dividing up the semantic domain of kinship, compared with English-speaking participants. Having covered a great deal of ground on the first day, workshop attendees met for dinner in central Bristol during the evening and talked over research ideas and experiences.

Friday provided an opportunity to focus on research methods. Joe and Alice introduced the first hour with a talk on elicitation and experiments. Camilla Morelli, Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Bristol, then provided an overview of the use of visual and sensory methods in child-centred anthropology. Drawing on her ethnographic fieldwork with indigenous children in the Peruvian Amazon, Camilla suggested ways in which such techniques can be applied when investigating kinship and the acquisition of kinship knowledge.

After a morning break, we heard again from Joe and Alice who led a wide-ranging discussion about linguistic and corpus-based methods. This useful, interactive session provided an opportunity for a closer exploration of the various approaches. Their two methods talks covered questionnaires and surveys for eliciting definitions and factual information, stimuli-based tasks using photos and/or dolls, and collecting behavioural data, both linguistic and non-linguistic. The discussion provided an opportunity to appraise successes and difficulties encountered in each of the approaches and the group exchanged experiences in the field.

We were then delighted to hear presentations from three early-career Phd Researchers. Sheina Lew-Levey from Cambridge University’s Dept of Psychology outlined her recent findings into the transmission of foraging knowledge as well as social and gender norms through play, word-play and teaching among Mbendjele forager children in the Congo Basin. Noa Lavi of Cambridge’s Anthropology Dept followed, with an overview of kinship concepts and flexible patterns of relationality among the Nayaka, hunter-gatherers in Nilgiri, South India. Noa described how Nayaka children’s knowledge and knowledge acquisition are based on gradual learning of the ability to alternate between different kinship concepts. Lastly, Gabriella Piña, a social anthropologist from the London School of Economics, talked about her work with the Pehuenche people of Southern Chile. In this society, independence and freedom are highly valued and offset by the practice of visiting and hosting, to support collaboration and avoid tension. She examined children’s participation in these activities and how these practices develop their understanding of kin.

Friday afternoon was dedicated to a round-up discussion. The group gathered in an open session to exchange views on the creation of a ‘field-kit’ intended to aid the study of the acquisition of kinship terms, for use by the group and other researchers.

In addition, as an ongoing interest, the group intend to make a joint interdisciplinary contribution towards a forthcoming article which will address a universal set of concerns relating to kinship acquisition. Most notably, the event was the first of its kind in its interdisciplinary draw and related events are likely to follow. One of the most considerable outcomes of the workshop has been the momentum created for future ventures and collaborations around developing the questions of kinship, forming new ideas and attracting newer researchers from an even greater diversification of approaches.

Conversation across languages and cultures: Dr Joe Blythe

The past few weeks the lab has hosted Dr Joe Blythe as  Benjamin Meaker Visiting Fellow from the University of Bristol’s Institute for Advanced Studies (thanks IAS!).

Joe’s final event is this evening, and we’re delighted to be hosting his public lecture:

Conversation across languages and cultures: Cross-linguistic perspectives on taking turns to talk.


Thursday 8 February 2018

17:00 – 18.00 & drinks reception

Lecture Theatre 3, Woodland Road Arts Complex

CAKTAM Workshop Handbook and Programme

CAKTAM Workshop Handbook and Programme

Today we are delighted to welcome colleagues from around the globe as we meet for this evening’s opening of the CAKTAM Workshop.  Over the next few days we’ll be sharing and learning together, ideas and methods for children’s acquisition of kinship knowledge.

We’ll be keeping you updated on Twitter and providing an overview here of all the great moments after the event.  In the meantime, here’s the CAKTAM Handbook and Programme.