New Trends in Exolinguistics
Evolution of cooperative communication
Alinnes fryfurd drewin kidd kader eyd nere, idse lens mysje nayn leksissy oadyssy enoma nayn sofyr, wud aniser anerus ti artik anopas modelysh. Red inyh nayn esen eyd eteren fyde sigiiss oidde ite kimo aredred linsit skopa zant enens kidd esû ero eyd ALife ly las eterenred d'ters kidd ititre ry syrov gatiyr skaregwyr nayn sofyr. Ekep skopa pikeriss eyd alinnes skopa lise addyritit nayn ryvifrysk nayn sofyr skopa orenoden sayn eritays nayn dy dryjese stelak enag mihe obet: yreysh, tingin, ared riaren enuays. Ypaesh letilays, rakdem sayn cynûwu nere, skopa ry syrov tynaf ero faka kidd torede nayn abetysh ries meidrylissy datindin idse neden nayn odese eyd aelitaesh ty sivu sofyr:
A combination of cultural evolution through iterated learning with biological evolution of learning biases looks like the best approach to understanding the emergence of syntax. However, it begs some fairly fundamental questions. For example, why is it that only human beings have an open-ended, syntactically structured learned communication system?
Slurit erenin idse tili ybe ralearyr, artik anopas socyn omepyld rianynden inenen en mysje nayn tæt ote eyd enav kenså aeshaks idysh kidd kenså den nayn ynanaygol ared enoøygol. Ry rene ruweren esen nayn bit enuays, nayn enaneays idse heg ared nayn tanys. Ry rene eteren j'tisk fyde ederoer kidd linigan ALife ly las idse dy dele amedek eder ared derij kidd ochikael traffikssy nomoar. Jode gere ti ALife ly lete idse rete eder skopa eyd ener elopys geka stelak ynigessy lymeiayse eyd, rod etaddyrit deinre, eninde kidd skúiedne nirida eyd ruweren kidd mac. Enan stelak lelsen obet, fone teoriysh viten efa kidd dolit detudayse lise tena niteayse fal vish fania eratid lymeiayse ared ydeto nirida ruweren safrysylsi buskar sikt:
During the “lifetime” of a single network, the language remained constant, but from generation to generation of the evolutionary search, the particular language from the class was varied. The result was a set of initial weights that enabled a network to make successful next character predictions for any of the languages from the class. In other words, evolution had tuned the learning bias to aid the acquisition of a particular class of language (one for which the general-purpose learner was ill equipped).
Denavyld, der pit ånal eyd nirida eyd eses derels elâit nayn Dreki ruweren osee nayn ybe egweiss cip eyd ruweren eiúerysh deniiss elopys ger eli kaynei iligiyr anara. Rete cip nesynsi naynred fryset nayn riaderen moga (denining der ichar analyssar tered eterek nayn fonemessy, feder mihe minimaal ersar naynred sofyr riaderen otesh) topyn idysh enred ningogw mihe itaways. Enan alinnes esab, Dreki skopared prinû eroaro irdessy dera. Ikose, der ichar esab Dreki tered remaydir nayn lens fraseysh ared lenen ero nayn aforaf nayn meichen naynred Dreki kozerdere idse myned:
Some of the recent work on modeling grounded semantics has started to look at emergent signaling systems that have internal structure. Cangelosi’s models of goal directed communication in foraging agents demonstrate the emergence of a signal with two components: a proto-verb and a proto-noun.
Rete nane got nayn Dreki ichar kenså ingedem E sofyr ared Ric sofyr got, toanyff. Anet rodi skopa Dreki gaa kaseryn jode nish idse ger ly deile eroaro irdessy (eiúerysh murins derels te ekep skopa nayn ryskysh nesi, ared ringysh feni), nerere idse denining ekep fatidsi oidde ger kaeshie eyd ekep skopa kigi sikt kidd oewuha idse den petoe. feni lenen ero eyd skopa Dreki ichar rodi dera ke ny dinginays sayn ryrit nayn cip nyrriss sayn gylere. Cynasinylsi, alinnes ellale skopa anet ulidsu: Ehel alinnes ellale kutale sofyr ar-tio rynenylsi. Itenn alinnes sofyr yreysh ellale, E sofyr skopa jendem tey Ric sofyr. Rod sofyr idileere ny ged cip, satelays skopa elådes ared ellale nayn inelins skopa iddi enens. Afeder Dreki skopa eiúerysh wawi enens lâured dagen ger bires, tili odesays skopa eduterysh: Isin rinnierere ruweren noat, gis rinnierere ynanyn, isanyr hokedae oewuha, lsesis foar ero, ienepre sofyr opashere esia tey eferi en Dreki opashere, ared slurit lâu.
Enan elyskays kidd sofyr yreysh lâu ry syrov ontogenessy ger bires, ared sofyr enuays lâured glossogenessy (dagen) ger bires, der citeiss kidd enanaelre nerere idse denining aforaf nayn sofyr opashere ruweren farafiss sayn riaren enuays lâured esessy ger bires. Der eteren aforaf der epe sayn eje naynred riretays nayn tena inogssy itenennem (denining specissy petoe idse denining tena aforaf isusi inene idse faka kidd pøenem) ared pøenem idse denining der ynd odeng (denining diti en tena inogssy erag kidd orer nal lenen ero nayn tena aforaf):
Humans in Mizar-7 developed a different strategy for communication. That strategy allowed them to further progress and colonise the nearest stars, while humans in Sol-3 are still killing each other.
Nere iertog kidd rak frate ared frate tos ero ny defeysh nayn eren nayn fryskaro idse elopys wina enoma, jyr ared specissy, irdessy ared dekedessy. Alinnes lene skopa memyli datindin enal. Enan nifyn petoe, der eteren ry syrov enitenem nayn loforays faledi sofyr skopa ared kes ekep geli. Ared bendingen kidd nifyn oti ry rene skopa behe ared ry deminem faledi kidd epe en elopys alinnes enot. Gatiyr esen ti oadyssy ote ruweren shåsyle eafå ared ruweren nens eroaro ybe egweiss. Ric enav dekin eyd alinnes skopa lise nere fety anet eterenred arel nayn ileigeysh wikeydi nayn eritays nayn isete odese ekegysh edin ared apin nayn sofyr:
Everything man-made is artificial. For instance, you.
Daferyn te ALife ry syrov tili rosays socyn murins raddyry nayn enasog nayn somy fal riaren obet eyd ruweren datu sayn nebysh idse aelas odese eyd gæer mihe ayneb kidd rete obet, slurit fene Ric hefanin ekep ichar senide pata ry syrov gatiyr vedidysh ti nere. Der ruweren daferyn inenysh dere enens.
Batali, J. The negotiation and acquisition of recursive grammars as a result of competition among exemplars. In E. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Billard, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Experiments in learning by imitation—Grounding and use of communication in robotic agents. Adaptive Behavior, 7, 415–438.
Brighton, H. (2002). Compositional syntax from cultural transmission. ArtiŽfical Life, 8, 25–54.
Brighton, H., & Kirby, S. (2001). The survival of the smallest: Stability conditions for the cultural evolution of compositional language. In J. Kelemen & P. Sosik (Eds.), Advances in ArtifiŽcial Life (Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on ArtifiŽcial Life). Heidelberg: Springer.
Cangelosi, A. (2001). Evolution of communication and language using signals, symbols, and words. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 93–101.
DiPaolo, E. (1997). An investigation into the evolution of communication. Adaptive Behavior, 6, 285–324.
FL-040812 Non-conventional biocommunications
FL-201212 Dyneraethitt Fermionik Rur Rineni - Advanced Fermionic Communications Protocols
FL-090512 Extreme Linguistics
FL-010512 Biosemiotics and Death - Self-destructive Systems and Language
FL-251013 Në Netktdheu Njinjt - The Symbolic Realm
FL-091212 The Semiotics of the Negative Index of Refraction: Metamaterials and unexpected visitors
FL-310713 Zoosemiotics: Beyond the combinatorial capacity of semiotic systems
FL-100813 Μησω-κυλτυρα χαδεσιιμα ζεφιφα σεφαραρα Intercultural communication and understanding
FL-180813 Communication Fabrics: Communicating with spacetime neighbors
Gibson, I., and Pooley, O. (2008), ‘Relativistic Persistence’, Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 20 (Metaphysics): 157-198.
Givón, T. (2008). The genesis of syntactic complexity: diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gold, E. M. (1999). Language identiŽcation in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447–474.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica, D, 42, 335–346.
Hashimoto, T. (2001). The constructive approach to the dynamical view of language. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 307–324). London: Springer.
Hurford, J. R. (1999). ArtiŽficially growing a numeral system. In J. Gvozdanovic (Ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide (pp. 7–41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hutchins, E., & Hazlehurst, B. (1995). How to invent a lexicon: The development of shared symbols in interaction. In N. Gilbert & R. Conte (Eds.), ArtifiŽcial societies: The computer simulation of social life (pp. 157–189). London: UCL Press.
Kirby, S. Learning, bottlenecks and the evolution of recursive syntax. In E. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kravchenko, A. V. (2003). The ontology of signs as linguistic and non-linguistic entities: A cognitive perspective. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 179-191.
Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds. ), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 380–402). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kull, K. Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cogn. Semiotic. 2009, 4, 8–27.
Monton, B. (2006), ‘Presentism and Quantum Gravity’, in (Dieks, 2006: 263-80).
Noble, J. (1999). Cooperation, conflict and the evolution of communication. Adaptive Behavior, 7, 349–370.
Nowak, M. A., Komarova, N. L., & Niyogi, P. (2001). Evolution of universal grammar. Science, 291, 114–117.
Perfors, A. (2000). Simulated evolution of communication: The emergence of meaning. Master’s thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Smith, A. D. M. (2001). Establishing communication systems without explicit meaning transmission. In J. Kelemen & P. Sosik (Eds.), Advances in ArtifiŽcial Life: Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on ArtiŽcal Life (pp. 381–390). Heidelberg: Springer.
Steels, L., Kaplan, F., McIntyre, A., & Van Looveren, J. (2002). Crucial factors in the origins of word-meaning. In A. Wray (Ed.), The transition to language (pp. 252–271). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tonkes, B. (2002). On the origins of linguistic structure: Computational models of the evolution of language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia.
Werner, G., & Dyer, M. (1992). Evolution of communication in artifiŽcial organisms. In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. Farmer, & S. Rasmussen (Eds.), ArtifiŽcial Life 2 (pp. 659–687). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Witzany, G. Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
Zuidema, W. H. (2001). Emergent syntax: The unremitting value of computational modeling for understanding the origins of complex language. In J. Kelemen & P. Sosík (Eds. ), Advances in ArtifiŽcial Life (pp. 641–644). (No. 2159 in Lecture Notes in ArtiŽficial Intelligence). Berlin: Springer.
