2930313233343532 of 55
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • apa.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Word choice is coupled with grammar: The case of kinship
School of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, .ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2952-644X
School of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, .ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0893-3713
Karlstad University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (starting 2013), Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies (from 2013).ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1323-1548
School of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3620-5254
Show others and affiliations
2026 (English)In: PLOS ONE, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 21, no 8, article id e0355784Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2026. Vol. 21, no 8, article id e0355784
Keywords [en]
kinship; kintax; cross-linguistic; lexical usage; grammar; corpus
National Category
Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
English
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-112017DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0355784ISI: 001850353000012PubMedID: 42599948Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105047546321OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-112017DiVA, id: diva2:2092511
Funder
Australian Research Council, DP0878126Available from: 2026-08-15 Created: 2026-08-15 Last updated: 2026-08-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1124 kB)10 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1124 kBChecksum SHA-512
0d5f86c8754afed31580b615e1172ef29111aee7968970bfbbbce31772e0ab28a47f53ddee5bbe4046f5ca923f2e2cc402b1d81969e74ec7266245f5f22de488
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Schalley, Andrea C.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Barth, DanielleEvans, NicholasSchalley, Andrea C.San Roque, LilaGipper, SonjaHodge, GabrielleBergqvist, HenrikDickson, GregoryGast, VolkerGuntsetseg, DolgorKashima, EriKurabe, KeitaSchnell, Stefanvan Putten, Saskia
By organisation
Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies (from 2013)
In the same journal
PLOS ONE
Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 78 hits
2930313233343532 of 55
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • apa.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf