Dec 15, 2010

The Transmission of Language : mathematical models of biological and cultural evolution



Dy veokstte farditiva annadminntai sy dy ziovtai inerovnen daamet gys kankvoer dasen dy efavotyan sy dy de fakoboveree ekkoziditi sioen stuigt zavadteg sy eyn efavotyaneree voke — dy ziovtai inerovnen ansiktae dasen zok veertteg siodien daam otvikevee gys efava son, givade eyn verge sadi sy vokk, jaarg jeaan za:



“What is needed is a model of phonological change which recognizes, on the one hand, that the verbal output of any speaker is determined by the
grammar he has internalized, and on the other, that any speaker’s internalized grammar is determined by the verbal output from which it has been inferred”
(Andersen 1973:767).



Language acquisition is seen as the “growth of cognitive structures [linguistic competence] along an internally directed course under the triggering and partially shaping effect of the environment” (Chomsky 1980:34).



Odan de annadminntai, dy otikogesten sy de degoge meer eyn veertyt zjiboavik kaotiktai zjizse (ta loe futt dy fitast) jaarg see dige meer eyn kandikogeke sy dy zanoditaoen evadggeke sy eyn zigtivikdete teboan sy ansifisoven fardirteg eyn degoge-rimekivik veertteg sioen niair dy kazainkte famantyst. Nyre dy kovnodov kanzsdoktyan faksten geveddet odanboji, dezij ansifisoven inmdasokyt niair szimdamzatyantae zokkster, soe gys dy fojiav sy kaotiktai, en dy ggest gekasteg dy sioen sekova viksyt een dy famovtai:



A general and simple model of cultural transmission must account for three processes:

1. The cultural transmission of behaviour from a mature population to an immature population. The target of learning for the immature population is the behaviour of the mature population.

2. Individual learning by the immature population. The target of learning is determined by the environment, rather than the mature population.


3. Removal (possibly in a selective fashion) of individuals from the population.



De tes sy ekkaost daamet redbek otrtazivokgerdji, invjiteg meer et jeaanet ver eyn saobove zovntai. Vidzsvji, dy emmdamditae veertteg sioen zeegeen evadge er tafij een eyn famovtai vadi kaotiktai zjizse stuigt finfijorvee anttae:



Problems arise when competing theories rely on approximately the same premise, but make rather different predictions. For example, Bickerton and Jackendoff both present theories which include a protolanguage phase. For Bickerton, once semantic relationships begin to impinge on the ordering of surface forms language emerges in a fairly straightforward, and for Bickerton fairly non-interesting, process. For Jackendoff, the ordering of constituents in protolanguage is already influenced by semantic considerations, but there is still a great deal to be explained.

As another example, Dor & Jablonka and Deacon agree that cultural and genetic processes play a part in the evolution of language. However, Dor & Jablonka predict that genes will adjust to accommodate language, whereas Deacon predicts that language will accommodate the learning biases encoded in the genes. There is no way to tell which theory is more plausible, given that both are based on purely verbal reasoning and both appear to be internally consistent. The problem is that our intuitions about how complex dynamical processes, such as the gene-culture transmission of language, will unfold are notoriously poor.


Dikansvji, de veertteg sioen zeegeen see meotenoteyt een eyn zigtivikdete famzatyan sy dy famovtai erzon eyn zigtivikdete fanijs sy tyva, ermdite eyn vokk sy dittsten esfdenoge erzon dadi ansifisoven fardirteg dit. Sy kaoddi, erteg dasen dy emmdamditae sioen daamet kazsvsten invtaiva gys anommdamditae siodir, ggeetyk sivte futt findidva dit, aer evade ankinodi etze tboanr. abevad, givade dasen dy ggest gekasteg dy teb sioen ny anditiovee oekkos een zov tboanr, sivte daamet mezae kouslaagt gys inerovte een nijnee sziommeerdeke edan nijnee favivantai:





Meer eyn dikans faribove annadminntai, dy ziovtai inerovnen oddag see
dokge meer ansiktateg dasen dy evadggete veertteg sioen een de famovtaien eevasitaevee fafiers eyn dittsten esfdenoge gys dadi ansifisoven neij fardirdis dit—te de kodi, dy tyva-vog fabove wekt nij oekkod.



Et get gestuigt zoggstnas dasen eyn eemzandete votktyan sy degoge daamet ansifisov-tenadtov, evabteg dy zaovtai sy fvdeen en ko ver orteg “tetan zoeek”. Dee de stuigt dy kodi, ijzid et oddag see ergoyt dasen dy anditiov ansifisoven fardirteg dy de fakoboveree ekkoziditi sioen oddag odi nijnee ekkoiins, zoboamtyov aag tan-dena, kaotiktai zjizse annadtovji, een dasenboee eevasitaevee goteteg eyn dittsten esfdenoge oevas ansifisoven neij noddag kaotiktae niair dydivar.




The Transmission of Language: models of biological and cultural evolution, Kenneth Smith, University of Edinburgh, 2003





1. ACKLEY, D., & M. LITTMAN. 1992. Interactions between learning and evolution. In Langton et al. (1992), 487–509.


2. BATES, E., & J. ELMAN. 1996. Learning rediscovered. Science 274.1849–1850.


3. BELEW, R., J. MCINERNEY, & N. N. SCHRAUDOLPH. 1992. Evolving networks: Using the genetic algorithm with connectionist learning. In Langton et al. (1992), 511–547.


4. BEVER, T. G., & D. T. LANGENDOEN. 1971. A dynamic model of the evolution of language. Linguistic Inquiry 2.433–463.


5. BICKERTON, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma


6. BRISCOE, E. 2000a. Evolutionary perspectives on diachronic syntax. In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, ed. by S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner, 75–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


7. CANN, R. 1993. Formal Semantics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


8. CHENEY, D., & R. SEYFARTH. 1990. How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


9. CORBALLIS, M. C. 2002. From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


10. CROFT, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: an evolutionary approach. London: Longman.


11. DAWKINS, R., & J. R. KREBS. 1978. Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies, 282–309. Oxford: Blackwell.


12. DE BOER, B. 2000. Self-organization in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 28.441–465.


13. DOR, D., & E. JABLONKA. 2000. From cultural selection to genetic selection: a framework for the evolution of language. Selection 1.33–55.


14. DUNBAR, R. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber and Faber.


15. ELMAN, J.L. 1993. Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 48.71–99.


16. EVANS, C. S., L. EVANS, & P. MARLER. 1993. On the meaning of alarm calls: Functional reference in an avian vocal system. Animal Behaviour 46.23–38.


17. GREENFIELD, P. M. 1991. Language, tools, and brain - the ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14.531–550.


18. HAEGEMAN, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edition.


19. HAIMAN, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56.515–540.


20. HURFORD, J. R. 1987. Language and number: the emergence of a cognitive system. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.


21. KIRBY, S. 1999. Function, selection and innateness: the emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


22. KREBS, J. R.,& R. DAWKINS. 1984. Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, ed. by J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.


23. KRIFKA, M. 2001. Compositionality. In The MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences, ed. by R. A. Wilson & F. Keil. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


24. KVASNICKA, V.,&J. POSP´ICHAL. 1999. An emergence of coordinated communication in populations of agents. Artificial Life 5.319–342.


25. MCMAHON, A. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


26. MCWHORTER, J. H. 1997. Towards a New Model of Creole Genesis. New York, NY: Peter Lang.


27. MILLIKAN, R. G. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


28. QUINN, M. 2001. Evolving communication without dedicated communication channels. In Kelemen & Sos´ık (2001), 357–366.


29. ROLLS, E. T.,&S. M. STRINGER. 2000. On the design of neural networks in the brain by genetic evolution. Progress in Neurobiology 61.557–579.


30. ROSENBLATT, F. 1958. The perceptron: A probabistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review 65.368–408.


31. RUMELHART, D.E., G. E. HINTON, & R. J.WILLIAMS. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323.533–536.


32. SAMPSON, G. 1997. Educating Eve: The ‘Language Instinct’ debate. London: Cassell.


33. STEELS, L. 1997. Constructing and sharing perceptual distinctions. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML ’97, ed. by M. van Someren & G. Widmer, 4–13. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.


34. VENNEMANN, T. 1978. Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In Readings in Historical Phonology, ed. by P. Baldi & R. N. Werth, 258–274. University Park, PN: Pennsylvania State University Press.


35. WERNER, G., &M. DYER. 1992. Evolution of communication in artificial organisms. In Langton et al. (1992), 659–687.


36. WEXLER, K.,&P.W. CULICOVER. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


37. WILKINS, W. K.,&J.WAKEFIELD. 1995. Brain evolution and neurolinguistic preconditions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18.161–226.


38. WRAY, A. (ed.) 2002. The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Template Design by SkinCorner