Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42599948›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Word choice is coupled with grammar: The case of kinship.

Danielle Barth, Nicholas Evans, Andrea C Schalley, Lila San Roque, Sonja Gipper, John Mansfield, Gabrielle Hodge, Alan Rumsey, I Wayan Arka, Henrik Bergqvist and 16 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Danielle BarthSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2952-644X
Nicholas EvansSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-3713
Andrea C SchalleyDepartment of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1323-1548
Lila San RoqueSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3620-5254
Sonja GipperDepartment of Linguistics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0972-1683
John MansfieldInstitute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gabrielle HodgeDepartment of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8677-6149
Alan RumseySchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
I Wayan ArkaSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Henrik BergqvistDepartment of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6114-5527
Gregory DicksonSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3599-6226
Christian DöhlerBerlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Berlin, Germany.
Diana ForkerInstitute for Slavonic Languages and Caucasus Studies, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany.
Volker GastDepartment of English and American Studies, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3034-0052
Dolgor GuntsetsegInstitute of Finno-Ugric and Uralic Studies, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6388-8877
Eri KashimaSchool of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7534-7047
Yukinori KimotoGraduate School of Humanities, Osaka University, Japan.
Dominique KnuchelDepartment of Linguistics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Norikazu KoguraResearch Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo, Japan.
Keita KurabeResearch Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4200-5216
Heiko NarrogFaculty of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan.
Desak Putu Eka PratiwiFaculty of Foreign Languages, Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
Stefan SchnellInstitute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2036-2263
Chikako SengeCentre for East Asian Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Elena SkribnikInstitute of Finno-Ugric and Uralic Studies, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Saskia van PuttenCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-9967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Is it true that 'grammars code best what speakers do most', as Du Bois suggested already in 1985? And do members of different cultures privilege talk about kinship relations to differing degrees? Could this be linked to the differential centrality of kinship to the vastly diverse grammars of the world's languages? We bring these three questions together in this study. Kinship relationships are central to the organisation of all human societies. Yet, we know little about what influences the frequency of reference to kin in spontaneous language use. In this study, we test factors that potentially associate with frequency of kin-term usage across 22 typologically diverse languages. Using a communicative task involving the description, arrangement and narration of pictures, we establish the proportion of human reference expressions formulated as kin terms in interactive language use and show that it does indeed differ across languages. We then examine candidate predictors for the usage frequency of kin-based lexical formulations (choice of word categories) by looking at (i) a structural variable ('kintax', the presence of grammatical means for encoding kinship in the language), (ii) a lexical variable (complexity of a subset of each language's kinship term system), (iii) a discourse variable (type of interaction a language user engages in at the time of speaking or signing), and (iv) a topicality variable (type of stimulus a language user references at the time of speaking or signing). We find all these to be relevant, but we focus on structural kintax. This provides a way of addressing Du Bois's hypothesis about the interaction between language structure and language use in human communication: the grammatical imprint of a language correlates with language users' word-choice patterns. We show that the more grammar you have for this semantic domain, the more you talk about it.

Indexed as

FamilyLanguageLinguisticsHumansSemantics

Identifiers

PMID42599948
PMCPMC13475811

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.