ArticlePloS one2026
Word choice is coupled with grammar: The case of kinship.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.