Some Word Order Biases from Limited Brain Resources: a Mathematical Approach

In this paper, we propose a mathematical framework for studying word order optimization. The framework relies on the well-known positive correlation between cognitive cost and the Euclidean distance between the elements (e.g. words) involved in a syntactic link. We study the conditions under which a certain word order is more economical than an alternative word order by proposing a mathematical approach. We apply our methodology to two different cases: (a) the ordering of subject (S), verb (V) and object (O), and (b) the covering of a root word by a syntactic link. For the former, we find that SVO and its symmetric, OVS, are more economical than OVS, SOV, VOS and VSO at least 2/3 of the time. For the latter, we find that uncovering the root word is more economical than covering it at least 1/2 of the time. With the help of our framework, one can explain some Greenbergian universals. Our findings provide further theoretical support for the hypothesis that the limited resources of the brain introduce biases toward certain word orders. Our theoretical findings could inspire or illuminate future psycholinguistics or corpus linguistics studies.

[1]  E. Gibson The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[2]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies , 1966 .

[3]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements , 1990, On Language.

[4]  Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho,et al.  On the universality of Zipf's law for word frequencies , 2007, Exact Methods in the Study of Language and Text.

[5]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Relja Vulanovic Grammar Efficiency and Complexity , 2003, Grammars.

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

[8]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Linguistic Evolution Through Language Acquisition: Learning, bottlenecks and the evolution of recursive syntax , 2002 .

[9]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice , 1987 .

[10]  T. Givón,et al.  On Understanding Grammar , 1979 .

[11]  R. F. Cancho Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. , 2004 .

[12]  Daniel Dominic Sleator,et al.  Parsing English with a Link Grammar , 1995, IWPT.

[13]  M. Dryer The Greenbergian word order correlations , 1992 .

[14]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  The speaker’s linearization problem , 1981 .

[15]  R. Ferrer i Cancho,et al.  Zipf's law from a communicative phase transition , 2005 .

[16]  W. J. Conover,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 1972 .

[17]  S. Potter,et al.  Universals of Language , 1966 .

[18]  N. Pearlmutter,et al.  Constraints on sentence comprehension , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[20]  Relja Vulanović The Combinatorics of Cases and Word Order , 2005 .

[21]  R. Ferrer i Cancho Why do syntactic links not cross , 2006 .

[22]  JOSEP DÍAZ,et al.  A survey of graph layout problems , 2002, CSUR.

[23]  Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon,et al.  Zipf's tool analogy and word order , 2002, Glottometrics.

[24]  Simon Kirby,et al.  The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Syntax Without Natural Selection: How Compositionality Emerges from Vocabulary in a Population of Learners , 2000 .

[25]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .