Literature DB >> 19497883

The proper treatment of language acquisition and change in a population setting.

Partha Niyogi1, Robert C Berwick.   

Abstract

Language acquisition maps linguistic experience, primary linguistic data (PLD), onto linguistic knowledge, a grammar. Classically, computational models of language acquisition assume a single target grammar and one PLD source, the central question being whether the target grammar can be acquired from the PLD. However, real-world learners confront populations with variation, i.e., multiple target grammars and PLDs. Removing this idealization has inspired a new class of population-based language acquisition models. This paper contrasts 2 such models. In the first, iterated learning (IL), each learner receives PLD from one target grammar but different learners can have different targets. In the second, social learning (SL), each learner receives PLD from possibly multiple targets, e.g., from 2 parents. We demonstrate that these 2 models have radically different evolutionary consequences. The IL model is dynamically deficient in 2 key respects. First, the IL model admits only linear dynamics and so cannot describe phase transitions, attested rapid changes in languages over time. Second, the IL model cannot properly describe the stability of languages over time. In contrast, the SL model leads to nonlinear dynamics, bifurcations, and possibly multiple equilibria and so suffices to model both the case of stable language populations, mixtures of more than 1 language, as well as rapid language change. The 2 models also make distinct, empirically testable predictions about language change. Using historical data, we show that the SL model more faithfully replicates the dynamics of the evolution of Middle English.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19497883      PMCID: PMC2691386          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0903993106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  4 in total

1.  Evolution of universal grammar.

Authors:  M A Nowak; N L Komarova; P Niyogi
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-01-05       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Language evolution by iterated learning with bayesian agents.

Authors:  Thomas L Griffiths; Michael L Kalish
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-05-06

3.  A language learning model for finite parameter spaces.

Authors:  P Niyogi; R C Berwick
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1996 Oct-Nov

4.  Innateness and culture in the evolution of language.

Authors:  Simon Kirby; Mike Dowman; Thomas L Griffiths
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  Language acquisition with communication between learners.

Authors:  Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen; Josef Tkadlec; Krishnendu Chatterjee; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  How could language have evolved?

Authors:  Johan J Bolhuis; Ian Tattersall; Noam Chomsky; Robert C Berwick
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 8.029

3.  Biology-Culture Co-evolution in Finite Populations.

Authors:  Bart de Boer; Bill Thompson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.