Dominant words rise to the top by positive frequency-dependent selection

Significance Speakers of a language somehow come to use the same words to express particular meanings—like “dog” or “table”—even though there is seldom a necessary connection between a word and its meaning, and there are often many alternatives from which to choose (e.g., “sofa,” “couch,” “settee”). We show that word choice is not just a matter of saying what others say. Rather, humans seem to be equipped with a bias that makes them disproportionately more likely to use the words that most others use. The force of this bias can drive competing words out, allowing a single word to dominate all others. It can also explain how languages spontaneously organize and remain relatively stable for centuries or even millennia. A puzzle of language is how speakers come to use the same words for particular meanings, given that there are often many competing alternatives (e.g., “sofa,” “couch,” “settee”), and there is seldom a necessary connection between a word and its meaning. The well-known process of random drift—roughly corresponding in this context to “say what you hear”—can cause the frequencies of alternative words to fluctuate over time, and it is even possible for one of the words to replace all others, without any form of selection being involved. However, is drift alone an adequate explanation of a shared vocabulary? Darwin thought not. Here, we apply models of neutral drift, directional selection, and positive frequency-dependent selection to explain over 417,000 word-use choices for 418 meanings in two natural populations of speakers. We find that neutral drift does not in general explain word use. Instead, some form of selection governs word choice in over 91% of the meanings we studied. In cases where one word dominates all others for a particular meaning—such as is typical of the words in the core lexicon of a language—word choice is guided by positive frequency-dependent selection—a bias that makes speakers disproportionately likely to use the words that most others use. This bias grants an increasing advantage to the common form as it becomes more popular and provides a mechanism to explain how a shared vocabulary can spontaneously self-organize and then be maintained for centuries or even millennia, despite new words continually entering the lexicon.

[1]  Juliette Blevins,et al.  Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns , 2004 .

[2]  W. Labov Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors , 2010 .

[3]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[4]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.

[5]  Kevin N. Laland,et al.  The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict , 2004 .

[6]  Michael Wilson MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 2001 .

[7]  S. Wright,et al.  Evolution in Mendelian Populations. , 1931, Genetics.

[8]  Richard A. William Blythe,et al.  S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change , 2012 .

[9]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[10]  Max Müller Darwinism tested by the Science of Language Translated from the German of Professor August Schleicher, , 1870, Nature.

[11]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Thomas L Griffiths,et al.  Words as alleles: connecting language evolution with Bayesian learners to models of genetic drift , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  R. Alexander Bentley,et al.  Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords , 2008, PloS one.

[14]  David Lightfoot,et al.  Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach , 2002 .

[15]  R. Alexander Bentley,et al.  Biases in cultural transmission shape the turnover of popular traits , 2014 .

[16]  M. Kimura,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 1983, Scientific American.

[17]  Mark Davies The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990―2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights , 2009 .

[18]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[20]  H. Simon,et al.  ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS , 1955 .

[21]  N. Anderson,et al.  Combining visual and verbal information in an impression-formation task. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  W. Ewens The sampling theory of selectively neutral alleles. , 1972, Theoretical population biology.

[23]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[24]  Andrew Meade,et al.  The deep history of the number words , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  R. Plevin,et al.  Approximate Bayesian Computation in Evolution and Ecology , 2011 .

[26]  Robin Clark,et al.  Detecting evolutionary forces in language change , 2016, Nature.

[27]  Andrew Meade,et al.  Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Stephen J Shennan,et al.  Random drift and culture change , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  M. D. de Aguiar,et al.  The mutation-drift balance in spatially structured populations. , 2016, Journal of theoretical biology.

[30]  Yaneer Bar-Yam,et al.  Moran model as a dynamical process on networks and its implications for neutral speciation. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[31]  ダーウィン チャールス,et al.  The descent of man and selection in relation to sex , 1907 .

[32]  Alex Mesoudi,et al.  Random copying, frequency-dependent copying and culture change , 2009 .

[33]  B. Rannala,et al.  The Bayesian revolution in genetics , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[34]  William A. Kretzschmar,et al.  Language and Complex Systems , 2015 .

[35]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[36]  William Croft,et al.  Explaining language change : an evolutionary approach , 2000 .

[37]  Matthew W. Hahn,et al.  Drift as a mechanism for cultural change: an example from baby names , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[38]  Hariharan Narayanan,et al.  Language evolution, coalescent processes, and the consensus problem on a social network , 2014 .

[39]  Matthew Walenski,et al.  The science of language , 2005 .

[40]  M. Pagel,et al.  Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history , 2007, Nature.

[41]  M. Arias,et al.  Warning signals are under positive frequency-dependent selection in nature , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Vittorio Loreto,et al.  Journal of Statistical Mechanics: An IOP and SISSA journal Theory and Experiment Sharp transition towardsshared vocabularies in multi-agent systems , 2006 .

[43]  Yuen Ren Chao,et al.  Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology , 1950 .

[44]  A. Whiten,et al.  Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees , 2005, Nature.

[45]  W. Kretzschmar Linguistic atlas of the middle and south atlantic states , 1995 .

[46]  Joseph Henrich,et al.  Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations : adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominate force in behavioral change and much of sociocultural evolution , 2001 .

[47]  C. Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[48]  Alva L. Davis A Compilation of the Work Sheets of the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada and Associated Projects. , 1969 .

[49]  P. Richerson,et al.  Culture and the Evolutionary Process , 1988 .

[50]  Erez Lieberman,et al.  Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language , 2007, Nature.

[51]  J. Henrich,et al.  The evolution of cultural evolution , 2003 .