Re: Evolution of Language

On Jul 27, 12:24 pm, Neil W Rickert <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
The sort of "formal theory" that has caught my attention is
evolutionary game theory. Specifically, Nowak and colleagues'
simulations have shown that the assembly of strings of meaningless
elements into words (as in phonology) is likely to evolve when there
is a large number of potential messages. At the level of words (where
the elements are meaningful) syntax tends to evolve in sufficiently
complex worlds that exhibit combinatorial structure, e.g. instead of
requiring n x m words to describe n subjects each capable of
performing m actions, only n nouns and m verbs are required - the
resulting grammar comes to represent the structure of the world.

Excuse my skepticism, but I don't expect anything useful to come
out of this kind of "formal theory" of languages.

Then prepare yourself for a big surpirise: it's already happening!

We have all heard how, back in 1866, The Societe de Linguisitique de
Paris banned discussions on the origins of language, thereby casting a
pall of disrespectability over the field that lasted well into this
century. So what's changed since then? To a large extent it's the
development of computational theories, and techniques for testing
them. Regardless of its origins, acquisition or effects, language is
mediated effectively by a signal narrow channel of sonic frequencies.
IMO, this distinguishes it from all other types of animal behaviour,
in that its propagation tends toward true implementation independence,
providing a natural fit with computational theories. And, language
doesn't just happen to be computationally compatible - it evolved to
be so.

But don't take my word for it. Look at Nowak's papers I cited above -
they have unrestricted access. Also, I've found a great introductory
text consisting of chapters contributed by more than a dozen language
evo. big-wigs, including Pinker, Hurford, Bickerton, Tomasello,
Deacon, Hauser, Fitch, Arbib, Lieberman, Briscoe, Komorova and of
course, Nowak.

Even Kaufman gets a citation or two ;-)

Language Evolution (2003) edited by Christiansen & Kirby
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0199244847

--
Joe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 5th evidence
    ... >>and evolved from a writing system, called Hanja or Hanzi, and not vice ... >>system started with the spoken language first then a writing system ... >>have evolved from a written language. ... >>Chinese languages do not generate or evolve from a writing system, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Limited syntax style, for economy?
    ... 2.His job was to separate diamonds from pebbles with great care. ... doesn't allow the knowledge to evolve in presentation sequence; ... Law people too, have a constrained language: ... Perhaps it's more efficient to parse fruity-english to simple-english, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: How did humans evolve to do mathematics?
    ... > humans evolve to do mathematics?" ... > Just as Chomsky had suggested that the facility to do language is ... I agree that humans didn't invent language (although they certainly have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Etymology!
    ... my arguments in favor of permutations in language. ... There is no room for opinion in an argument. ... letters or phonemes limit language, ... So this is an assertion that is either meaningless or false. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: More Etymology!
    ... my arguments in favor of permutations in language. ... There is no room for opinion in an argument. ... letters or phonemes limit language, ... So this is an assertion that is either meaningless or false. ...
    (sci.lang)