Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language

Human language is based on grammatical rules. Cultural evolution allows these rules to change over time. Rules compete with each other: as new rules rise to prominence, old ones die away. To quantify the dynamics of language evolution, we studied the regularization of English verbs over the past 1,200 years. Although an elaborate system of productive conjugations existed in English’s proto-Germanic ancestor, Modern English uses the dental suffix, ‘-ed’, to signify past tense. Here we describe the emergence of this linguistic rule amidst the evolutionary decay of its exceptions, known to us as irregular verbs. We have generated a data set of verbs whose conjugations have been evolving for more than a millennium, tracking inflectional changes to 177 Old-English irregular verbs. Of these irregular verbs, 145 remained irregular in Middle English and 98 are still irregular today. We study how the rate of regularization depends on the frequency of word usage. The half-life of an irregular verb scales as the square root of its usage frequency: a verb that is 100 times less frequent regularizes 10 times as fast. Our study provides a quantitative analysis of the regularization process by which ancestral forms gradually yield to an emerging linguistic rule.

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

[2]  G. Miller,et al.  Some effects of intermittent silence. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Current trends in linguistics. , 1959, Science.

[4]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[5]  Joan L. Bybee Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[6]  S. Pinker,et al.  On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition , 1988, Cognition.

[7]  A. Kroch Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change , 1989, Language Variation and Change.

[8]  Wolfgang Sternefeld,et al.  Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research , 1993 .

[9]  J. Elman,et al.  Learning and morphological change , 1995, Cognition.

[10]  Gary F. Marcus,et al.  German Inflection: The Exception That Proves the Rule , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  P. Srere An exception that proves the rule , 1995, Nature.

[12]  D. Lightfoot The development of language , 1999 .

[13]  S. Pinker Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language , 1999 .

[14]  Charles D. Yang,et al.  Knowledge and learning in natural language , 2000 .

[15]  Steven Pinker,et al.  The Irregular Verbs , 2000 .

[16]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure , 2001 .

[17]  P. Niyogi,et al.  Computational and evolutionary aspects of language , 2002, Nature.

[18]  Satoru Tsukamoto,et al.  Syntactic Annotation and Text Classification: A Study Using the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English , 2002 .

[19]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[20]  S. Strogatz,et al.  Linguistics: Modelling the dynamics of language death , 2003, Nature.

[21]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Structural similarity within and among languages , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Maria Glushko Towards the Quantitative Approach to Studying Evolution of English Verb Paradigm , 2004 .

[23]  Jean Christophe Verstraeh Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure , 2005 .

[24]  Partha Niyogi,et al.  Book Reviews: The Computational Nature of Language Learning and Evolution, by Partha Niyogi , 2007, CL.

[25]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition , 2007 .

[26]  Denise Brandão de Oliveira e Britto,et al.  The faculty of language , 2007 .

[27]  W. Labov Transmission and Diffusion , 2007 .