Word Meanings Evolve to Selectively Preserve Distinctions on Salient Dimensions

Words refer to objects in the world, but this correspondence is not one-to-one: Each word has a range of referents that share features on some dimensions but differ on others. This property of language is called underspecification. Parts of the lexicon have characteristic patterns of underspecification; for example, artifact nouns tend to specify shape, but not color, whereas substance nouns specify material but not shape. These regularities in the lexicon enable learners to generalize new words appropriately. How does the lexicon come to have these helpful regularities? We test the hypothesis that systematic backgrounding of some dimensions during learning and use causes language to gradually change, over repeated episodes of transmission, to produce a lexicon with strong patterns of underspecification across these less salient dimensions. This offers a cultural evolutionary mechanism linking individual word learning and generalization to the origin of regularities in the lexicon that help learners generalize words appropriately.

[1]  S. Kirby,et al.  Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity , 2013, CogSci.

[2]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning , 2010, Cognition.

[3]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  The social-pragmatic theory of word learning. , 2000 .

[4]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Word learning as Bayesian inference. , 2007, Psychological review.

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

[6]  J. Kruschke,et al.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. , 1992, Psychological review.

[7]  Amy Perfors,et al.  Language evolution is shaped by the structure of the world: An iterated learning analysis , 2011, CogSci.

[8]  Dirk Geeraerts,et al.  Theories of Lexical Semantics , 2010 .

[9]  Eliana Colunga,et al.  Knowledge as Process: Contextually Cued Attention and Early Word Learning , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  S. Waxman,et al.  Nouns mark category relations: toddlers' and preschoolers' word-learning biases. , 1990, Child development.

[11]  E. Clark.  Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition , 1997, Cognition.

[12]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Cultural Evolution and Perpetuation of Arbitrary Communicative Conventions in Experimental Microsocieties , 2012, PloS one.

[13]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object name Learning Provides On-the-Job Training for Attention , 2002, Psychological science.

[14]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition , 1994 .

[15]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Integrating the Horizontal and Vertical Cultural Transmission of Novel Communication Systems , 2011, CogSci.

[16]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The Lexicon in Acquisition , 1996 .

[17]  F. Keil.  Explanation, association, and the acquisition of word meaning , 1994 .

[18]  James E. Corter,et al.  Conventional Wisdom: Negotiating Conventions of Reference Enhances Category Learning , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  H. Cornish.  Language adapts: exploring the cultural dynamics of iterated learning , 2011 .

[20]  L. Steels.  Evolving grounded communication for robots , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  D Kelemen,et al.  Domain-specific knowledge in simple categorization tasks , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[23]  Austin F. Frank,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2010 .

[24]  Terry Regier,et al.  The Emergence of Words: Attentional Learning in Form and Meaning , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  P. Bloom.  How children learn the meanings of words , 2000 .

[26]  Catherine M. Sandhofer,et al.  Why children learn color and size words so differently: evidence from adults' learning of artificial terms. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[27]  Helge Svare.  THE RELATIONAL CATEGORIES , 2006 .

[28]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  An attentional learning account of the shape bias: reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005). , 2006, Developmental psychology.

[29]  S. Waxman,et al.  Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[30]  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.

[31]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  The evolution of frequency distributions: Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning , 2009, Cognition.

[32]  A. Markman,et al.  Categorization inside and outside the laboratory : essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin , 2005 .

[33]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  Children Build on Pragmatic Information in Language Acquisition , 2010, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[34]  Emilie L. Lin,et al.  Effects of Background Knowledge on Object Categorization and Part Detection , 1997 .

[35]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Principle-Based Inferences in Young Children's Categorization: Revisiting the Impact of Function on the Naming of Artifacts. , 1995 .

[36]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .