“Socio-cultural transmission” in language evolution?

2018 ◽  
Vol 26-27 ◽  
pp. 155-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salikoko S. Mufwene
2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Gong ◽  
James W. Minett ◽  
William S.-Y. Wang

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Brighton

A growing body of work demonstrates that syntactic structure can evolve in populations of genetically identical agents. Traditional explanations for the emergence of syntactic structure employ an argument based on genetic evolution: Syntactic structure is specified by an innate language acquisition device (LAD). Knowledge of language is complex, yet the data available to the language learner are sparse. This incongruous situation, termed the “poverty of the stimulus,” is accounted for by placing much of the specification of language in the LAD. The assumption is that the characteristic structure of language is somehow coded genetically. The effect of language evolution on the cultural substrate, in the absence of genetic change, is not addressed by this explanation. We show that the poverty of the stimulus introduces a pressure for compositional language structure when we consider language evolution resulting from iterated observational learning. We use a mathematical model to map the space of parameters that result in compositional syntax. Our hypothesis is that compositional syntax cannot be explained by understanding the LAD alone: Compositionality is an emergent property of the dynamics resulting from sparse language exposure.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasamin Motamedi ◽  
Lucie Wolters ◽  
Danielle Naegeli ◽  
Simon Kirby ◽  
Marieke Schouwstra

Silent gesture studies, in which hearing participants from different linguistic backgrounds produce gestures to communicate events, have been used to test hypotheses about the cognitive biases that govern cross-linguistic word order preferences. In particular, the differential use of SOV and SVO order to communicate, respectively, extensional events (where the direct object exists independently of the event; e.g., girl throws ball) and intensional events (where the meaning of the direct object is potentially dependent on the verb; e.g., girl thinks of ball), has been suggested to represent a natural preference, demonstrated in improvisation contexts. However, natural languages tend to prefer systematic word orders, where a single order is used regardless of the event being communicated. We present a series of studies that investigate ordering preferences for SOV and SVO orders using an online forced-choice experiment, where participants select orders for different events i) in the absence of conventions and ii) after learning event-order mappings in different frequencies in a regularisation experiment. Our results show that natural ordering preferences arise in the absence of conventions, replicating previous findings from production experiments. In addition, we show that participants regularise the input they learn in the manual modality in two ways, such that, while the preference for systematic order patterns increases through learning, it exists in competition with the natural ordering preference, that conditions order on the semantics of the event. Using our experimental data in a computational model of cultural transmission, we show that this pattern is expected to persist over generations, suggesting that we should expect to see evidence of semantically-conditioned word order variability in at least some languages.


2003 ◽  
Vol 06 (04) ◽  
pp. 537-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNY SMITH ◽  
HENRY BRIGHTON ◽  
SIMON KIRBY

Language arises from the interaction of three complex adaptive systems — biological evolution, learning, and culture. We focus here on cultural evolution, and present an Iterated Learning Model of the emergence of compositionality, a fundamental structural property of language. Our main result is to show that the poverty of the stimulus available to language learners leads to a pressure for linguistic structure. When there is a bottleneck on cultural transmission, only a language which is generalizable from sparse input data is stable. Language itself evolves on a cultural time-scale, and compositionality is language's adaptation to stimulus poverty.


2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1747) ◽  
pp. 4643-4651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Gong ◽  
Lan Shuai

Joint attention (JA) is important to many social, communicative activities, including language, and humans exhibit a considerably high level of JA compared with non-human primates. We propose a coevolutionary hypothesis to explain this degree-difference in JA: once JA started to aid linguistic comprehension, along with language evolution, communicative success (CS) during cultural transmission could enhance the levels of JA among language users. We illustrate this hypothesis via a multi-agent computational model, where JA boils down to a genetically transmitted ability to obtain non-linguistic cues aiding comprehension. The simulation results and statistical analysis show that: (i) the level of JA is correlated with the understandability of the emergent language; and (ii) CS can boost an initially low level of JA and ‘ratchet’ it up to a stable high level. This coevolutionary perspective helps explain the degree-difference in many language-related competences between humans and non-human primates, and reflects the importance of biological evolution, individual learning and cultural transmission to language evolution.


2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten H. Christiansen ◽  
Nick Chater

AbstractOur target article argued that a genetically specified Universal Grammar (UG), capturing arbitrary properties of languages, is not tenable on evolutionary grounds, and that the close fit between language and language learners arises because language is shaped by the brain, rather than the reverse. Few commentaries defend a genetically specified UG. Some commentators argue that we underestimate the importance of processes of cultural transmission; some propose additional cognitive and brain mechanisms that may constrain language and perhaps differentiate humans from nonhuman primates; and others argue that we overstate or understate the case against co-evolution of language genes. In engaging with these issues, we suggest that a new synthesis concerning the relationship between brains, genes, and language may be emerging.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document