Emergence of Names and Compositionality

Here is presented an algebraic model of emergence of natural language, which defines language as the limit of a communication process in a society of agents. The heterogeneous model consists of semantic algebra Obj created by the set of attributes (elementary perceptions) and syntactic algebra L. Objects are compositional, determined by their attributes and sub-objects. Every agent a maintains its own language La⊆L, which is developed in the communication process using a meaning morphism ma:La→Obj, the speech morphism spa:Obj→La and a naming function na:Obj→Na, where Na is a set of names (subjective attributes, Na∩La=O). The model is investigated using computer modelling (language game). In the communication process agents add new words to their languages (at the beginning all La=O) and improve their meaning and speech functions using inference and disambiguation of semantics when objects are presented in different contexts. At the first stage of language creation agents use grounded messages (the message's object is included, e.g. pointed at), but on later stages they can also use ungrounded messages. Communication allows errors and several random features. If in the process of sending-receiving messages agents understanding of each other improves, i.e. error rate in recreating message's object decreases, then at the limit they create common language. It is shown, how compositionality (structure) in semantic domain creates elementary compositionality (structured denotations) also in the language. Compositionality of denotations follows from a very simple algorithm of agent's behaviour and does not require any pre-defined word categories or syntactic rules.

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Language and Mind , 1973 .

[2]  Jung-Kyoo Choi.  Play locally, learn globally: group selection and structural basis of cooperation , 2008 .

[3]  Jennifer M. Rodd,et al.  The Emergence of Semantic Categories from Distributed Featural Representations , 2001 .

[4]  Tao Gong,et al.  Coevolution of lexicon and syntax from a simulation perspective , 2005, Complex..

[5]  W. Calvin,et al.  Lingua ex Machina: Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain , 2001 .

[6]  Henry Brighton,et al.  Compositional Syntax From Cultural Transmission , 2002, Artificial Life.

[7]  Ewa Orlowska,et al.  A logic of indiscernibility relations , 1984, Symposium on Computation Theory.

[8]  Ted Briscoe.  Grammatical acquisition: Inductive bias and coevolution of language and the language acquisition device , 2000 .

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

[10]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding , 1972 .

[11]  R. Sternberg.  Most vocabulary is learned from context. , 1987 .

[12]  Luc Steels,et al.  Grounding adaptive language games in robotic agents , 1997 .

[13]  Andrew D. M. Smith,et al.  Evolving communication through the inference of meaning , 2003 .

[14]  Derek Bickerton,et al.  The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: How Protolanguage Became Language , 2000 .

[15]  Michael R Brent,et al.  Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. , 2004, Developmental psychology.

[16]  Robin S. Chapman,et al.  Partial representations and phonological selectivity in the comprehension of 13- to 16-month-olds , 1998 .

[17]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  A Bayesian View of Language Evolution by Iterated Learning - eScholarship , 2005 .

[18]  Paul Vogt,et al.  Anchoring of semiotic symbols , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

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

[20]  Patricia A. Herman,et al.  Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. , 1987 .

[21]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Linguistic Evolution through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models. , 2002 .