Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936013›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Foggy connections, cloudy frontiers: On the (non-)adaptation of lexical structures.

Matthias Urban

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A computational analysis of lexical elaboration across languages.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Matthias UrbanCenter for Advanced Studies "Words, Bones, Genes, Tools", University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While research on possible adaptive processes in language history has recently centered mostly on phonological variables, here, I return the focus on the lexicon in two different ways. First, I take up the familiar theme of the responsiveness of language structure to the local conditions at different elevations of the earth's surface by exploring further the idea that language communities at high altitudes may tend not to distinguish lexically, as, e.g., English does, between "cloud" and "fog." Analyses of a global dataset of languages as well as in-depth study of the languages of the Central Andes are consistent in showing a wide spread of colexification of "cloud" and "fog" across elevations, whereas distinguishing languages tend more to be spoken at lower elevations. Statistically, there is global support for the idea that colexification is triggered by high elevation, but a closer look, in particular at the Andean dataset, paints a more nuanced picture. Concretely, it shows that in some language families, there are consistent preferences for either colexifying or distinguishing between "cloud" and "fog." In particular, the behavior of the large Quechuan family, which ranges across high- and low-elevation environments but still is consistently colexifying, shows no evidence for adaptive processes within language families. This result is open to various interpretations and explanations, for they suggest lineage-specific preferences for or against colexification that run counter to global trends. It is also at odds with the notions of "efficient communication" and "communicative need" as far as they relate to lexical categories and bars mechanistic or deterministic views on the processes in which the categories of languages are molded.

Indexed as

Central AndescolexificationenvironmentlanguageQuechua

Identifiers

PMID36936013
PMCPMC10014924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read27
measurements read2
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.