Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25605893›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations.

Nicole Creanza, Merritt Ruhlen, Trevor J Pemberton, Noah A Rosenberg, Marcus W Feldman, Sohini Ramachandran

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. An inverse correlation between structural linguistic and human genetic diversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Half a century of quantitative cultural evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Genetic and linguistic comparisons reveal complex sex-biased transmission of language features.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  9. Islands are engines of language diversity.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Language: Its Origin and Ongoing Evolution.Journal of Intelligence · 2023
    Review
  15. A global analysis of matches and mismatches between human genetic and linguistic histories.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  16. Impact of cultural and genetic structure on food choices along the Silk Road.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. The genetic legacy of the Manila galleon trade in Mexico.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicole CreanzaDepartment of Biology and.
Merritt RuhlenDepartment of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Trevor J PembertonDepartment of Biochemistry and Medical Genetics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3E 0J9; and.
Noah A RosenbergDepartment of Biology and.
Marcus W FeldmanDepartment of Biology and mfeldman@stanford.edu sramachandran@brown.edu.
Sohini RamachandranDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Center for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 mfeldman@stanford.edu sramachandran@brown.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide patterns of genetic variation are driven by human demographic history. Here, we test whether this demographic history has left similar signatures on phonemes-sound units that distinguish meaning between words in languages-to those it has left on genes. We analyze, jointly and in parallel, phoneme inventories from 2,082 worldwide languages and microsatellite polymorphisms from 246 worldwide populations. On a global scale, both genetic distance and phonemic distance between populations are significantly correlated with geographic distance. Geographically close language pairs share significantly more phonemes than distant language pairs, whether or not the languages are closely related. The regional geographic axes of greatest phonemic differentiation correspond to axes of genetic differentiation, suggesting that there is a relationship between human dispersal and linguistic variation. However, the geographic distribution of phoneme inventory sizes does not follow the predictions of a serial founder effect during human expansion out of Africa. Furthermore, although geographically isolated populations lose genetic diversity via genetic drift, phonemes are not subject to drift in the same way: within a given geographic radius, languages that are relatively isolated exhibit more variance in number of phonemes than languages with many neighbors. This finding suggests that relatively isolated languages are more susceptible to phonemic change than languages with many neighbors. Within a language family, phoneme evolution along genetic, geographic, or cognate-based linguistic trees predicts similar ancestral phoneme states to those predicted from ancient sources. More genetic sampling could further elucidate the relative roles of vertical and horizontal transmission in phoneme evolution.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationLinguisticsFounder EffectHumansPhylogeographyPrincipal Component Analysiscultural evolutionhuman migrationlanguagespopulation genetics

Identifiers

PMID25605893
PMCPMC4321277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.