Noise, Economy, and the Emergence of Information Structure in a Laboratory Language

The acceptability of sentences in natural language is constrained not only grammaticality, but also by the relationship between what is being conveyed and such factors as context and the beliefs of interlocutors. In many languages the critical element in a sentence (its focus) must be given grammatical prominence. There are different accounts of the nature of focus marking. Some researchers treat it as the grammatical realization of a potentially arbitrary feature of universal grammar and do not provide an explicit account of its origins; others have argued, however, that focus marking is a (grammaticalized) functional solution to the problem of efficiently transmitting information via a noisy channel. By adding redundancy to highlight critical elements in particular, focus protects key parts of the message from noise. If this information-theoretic account is true, then we should expect focus-like behavior to emerge even in non-linguistic communication systems given sufficient noise and pressures for efficiency. We tested this in an experiment in which participants played a simple communication game in which they had to click cells on a grid to communicate one of two line figures drawn across the grid. We manipulated the noise, available time, and required effort, and measured patterns of redundancy. Because the lines in many cases overlapped, meaning that only some parts of each line could be used to distinguish it from the other, we were able to compare the extent to which effort was expended on adding redundancy to critical (non-overlapping) and non-critical (overlapping) parts of the message. The results supported the information-theoretic account of focus and shed light on the emergence of information structure in language.

[1]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning , 2015, CogSci.

[2]  S. Kirby,et al.  Iterated learning and the evolution of language , 2014, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[3]  Laurence R. Horn Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics , 2005 .

[4]  M. Zimmermann Contrastive focus and emphasis , 2008 .

[5]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  Experimental Semiotics: A New Approach for Studying Communication as a Form of Joint Action , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[6]  D. Bolinger Accent Is Predictable (If You're a Mind-Reader) , 1972 .

[7]  Maryia Fedzechkina,et al.  Social biases modulate the loss of redundant forms in the cultural evolution of language , 2018, Cognition.

[8]  E. Selkirk,et al.  Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English , 2012 .

[9]  L. Rizzi The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[10]  Gareth Roberts,et al.  Why some behaviors spread while others don’t: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact , 2018, Cognition.

[11]  Malte Zimmermann,et al.  Focus marking and focus interpretation , 2011 .

[12]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Emergence of Human Communication Systems , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Learning biases predict a word order universal , 2012, Cognition.

[15]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Balancing Effort and Information Transmission During Language Acquisition: Evidence From Word Order and Case Marking , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Wm. G. Bennett,et al.  Phonotactic c(l)ues to Bantu noun class disambiguation , 2016 .

[17]  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.

[18]  Leon Bergen,et al.  Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  E. Newport,et al.  Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Sean G. Roberts,et al.  Language adapts to signal disruption in interaction , 2016 .

[21]  G. Ritchie,et al.  Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication , 2008, Cognition.

[22]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Julia Horvath,et al.  “Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast , 2010 .

[24]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Emergence of combinatorial structure and economy through iterated learning with continuous acoustic signals , 2014, J. Phonetics.

[25]  S. Kirby,et al.  The cultural evolution of language. , 2016, Current opinion in psychology.

[26]  D. Barner Language, procedures, and the non-perceptual origin of number word meanings* , 2017, Journal of Child Language.

[27]  A. Christophe,et al.  Newborns' Cry Melody Is Shaped by Their Native Language , 2009, Current Biology.

[28]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  GIVENNESS, AVOIDF AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLACEMENT OF ACCENT* , 1999 .

[29]  Stefan Müller,et al.  Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches , 2016 .

[30]  Antonio Loprieno,et al.  Ancient Egyptian: Index of lexemes , 1995 .

[31]  Gareth Roberts The linguist’s Drosophila: Experiments in language change , 2017 .

[32]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality , 2015, Cognition.

[33]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Basic notions of information structure , 2008 .

[34]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  S. Levinson Turn-taking in Human Communication – Origins and Implications for Language Processing , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[37]  R. Krauss,et al.  Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: a preliminary study , 1964 .

[38]  S. Kirby,et al.  Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure , 2015, Cognition.

[39]  Gareth Roberts,et al.  Experimental Semiotics , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[40]  Gareth Roberts,et al.  An experimental study of social selection and frequency of interaction in linguistic diversity , 2010 .

[41]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  CONTRASTIVE FOCUS, GIVENNESS AND THE UNMARKED STATUS OF "DISCOURSE-NEW"* , 2008 .