Abstract:
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 is 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.
Citations
|
2331
|
Optimization by Simulated Annealing
– Kirkpatrick, Gelatt, et al.
- 1983
|
|
1127
|
Kolmogorov complexity and its applications
– Li, Vitinyi
- 1990
|
|
740
|
Modeling by shortest data description
– Rissanen
- 1978
|
|
266
|
On Nature and Language
– Chomsky
- 2002
|
|
182
|
Rules and representations
– Chomsky
- 1990
|
|
132
|
The cultural origins of human cognition
– Tomasello
- 1999
|
|
130
|
Natural language and natural selection
– Pinker, Bloom
- 1990
|
|
128
|
Culture and the Evolutionary Process
– Boyd, PJ
- 1985
|
|
89
|
Formal Philosophy; Selected papers of Richard Montague
– Montague
- 1974
|
|
70
|
Syntax without natural selection: how compositionality emerges from vocabulary in a population of learners
– Kirby
- 2000
|
|
63
|
Perceptually grounded meaning creation
– Steels
- 1995
|
|
59
|
Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure: an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity
– Kirby
- 2001
|
|
55
|
Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language
– Dunbar
- 1993
|
|
46
|
Learning, bottlenecks and the evolution of recursive syntax
– Kirby
- 2002
|
|
32
|
Evolution of universal grammar
– Nowak, Komarova, et al.
- 2001
|
|
25
|
Establishing communication systems without explicit meaning transmission
– Smith
- 2001
|
|
21
|
The survival of the smallest: Stability conditions for the cultural evolution of compositional language
– Brighton, Kirby
- 2001
|
|
4
|
The evolution of syntactic communication. Nature
– Nowak, Plotkin, et al.
- 2000
|
|
4
|
Language Acquisition, Data Compression and Generalization
– Wol
- 1982
|
|
3
|
The negotiation and acquisition of recursive communication systems as a result of competition among exemplars
– Batali
- 2001
|
|
3
|
Analysis of the language of ants by information-theoretical methods
– Reznikova
- 1986
|
|
3
|
Syntax as an emergent property of the evolution of semantic complexity
– Schoenemann
- 1999
|
|
2
|
Using shannon entropy and kolmogorov complexity to study the communicative system and cognitive capacities in ants
– Ryabko
- 1996
|
|
2
|
The talking heads experiment (Vol
– Steels
- 1999
|
|
2
|
Eects of acquisition on language evolution
– Teal
- 2000
|