Conceptual Similarity and Communicative Need Shape Colexification: An Experimental Study

Colexification refers to the phenomenon of multiple meanings sharing one word in a language. Cross-linguistic lexification patterns have been shown to be largely predictable, as similar concepts are often colexified. We test a recent claim that, beyond this general tendency, communicative needs play an important role in shaping colexification patterns. We approach this question by means of a series of human experiments, using an artificial language communication game paradigm. Our results across four experiments match the previous cross-linguistic findings: all other things being equal, speakers do prefer to colexify similar concepts. However, we also find evidence supporting the communicative need hypothesis: when faced with a frequent need to distinguish similar pairs of meanings, speakadjust their colexification preferences to maintain communicative efficiency and avoid colexifying those similar meanings which need to be distinguished in communication. This research provides further evidence to support the argument that languages are shaped by the needs and preferences of their speakers.

[1]  Terry Regier,et al.  Efficient use of ambiguity in an early writing system: Evidence from Sumerian cuneiform , 2019, CogSci.

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

[3]  William Croft,et al.  How individuals change language , 2021, PloS one.

[4]  Naftali Tishby,et al.  Semantic categories of artifacts and animals reflect efficient coding , 2019, SCIL.

[5]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Expressivity of Emergent Language is a Trade-off between Contextual Complexity and Unpredictability , 2021, ArXiv.

[6]  Stefan Hartmann,et al.  Usage context influences the evolution of overspecification in iterated learning , 2017 .

[7]  Katrin Erk,et al.  Deep Neural Models of Semantic Shift , 2018, NAACL-HLT.

[8]  S. Kirby,et al.  Simplicity and informativeness in semantic category systems , 2020, Cognition.

[9]  Angela M. Brown,et al.  Color Naming and the Phototoxic Effects of Sunlight on the Eye , 2002, Psychological science.

[10]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  David Lightfoot,et al.  Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach , 2002 .

[12]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Social Group Effects on the Emergence of Communicative Conventions and Language Complexity , 2018, Journal of Language Evolution.

[13]  Marco Baroni,et al.  Communicating artificial neural networks develop efficient color-naming systems , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Predicting Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Games , 2012, Science.

[15]  Felix Hill,et al.  SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models With (Genuine) Similarity Estimation , 2014, CL.

[16]  Mahesh Srinivasan,et al.  Algorithms in the historical emergence of word senses , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Gary Lupyan,et al.  Quantifying Semantic Similarity Across Languages , 2018, CogSci.

[18]  S. Kirby,et al.  The emergence of linguistic structure: an overview of the iterated learning model , 2002 .

[19]  Ekaterini Klepousniotou The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon , 2002, Brain and Language.

[20]  Simon Hengchen,et al.  Time-Out: Temporal Referencing for Robust Modeling of Lexical Semantic Change , 2019, ACL.

[21]  Martin Haspelmath Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability , 2021, Journal of Linguistics.

[22]  Mahesh Srinivasan,et al.  How concepts and conventions structure the lexicon: Cross-linguistic evidence from polysemy , 2014 .

[23]  Edward Sapir,et al.  LANGUAGE AND ENVIRONMENT1 , 1912 .

[24]  José Segovia Martín,et al.  Network Connectivity Dynamics, Cognitive Biases, and the Evolution of Cultural Diversity in Round-Robin Interactive Micro-Societies , 2020, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Bevil R. Conway,et al.  Color naming across languages reflects color use , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  The emergence of linguistic structure in an online iterated learning task , 2017 .

[27]  Kenny Smith,et al.  How Culture and Biology Interact to Shape Language and the Language Faculty , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Season naming and the local environment , 2019, CogSci.

[29]  Lars Borin,et al.  The Intercontinental Dictionary Series - a rich and principled database for language comparison , 2013 .

[30]  Tomas Mikolov,et al.  Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information , 2016, TACL.

[31]  Shiri Lev-Ari,et al.  Larger communities create more systematic languages , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[32]  Matthias Urban,et al.  Using Network Approaches to Enhance the Analysis of Cross-Linguistic Polysemies , 2013, IWCS.

[33]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Language as shaped by the brain. , 2008, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[34]  Eörs Szathmáry,et al.  The evolutionary dynamics of language , 2017, Biosyst..

[35]  O. Morin,et al.  Graphic complexity in writing systems , 2021, Cognition.

[36]  Maryia Fedzechkina,et al.  Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Knowing versus Naming: Similarity and the Linguistic Categorization of Artifacts , 1999 .

[38]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  The Typology of Polysemy: A Multilingual Distributional Framework , 2020, ArXiv.

[39]  B. Malt,et al.  Conceptual relations predict colexification across languages , 2020, Cognition.

[40]  Robin Clark,et al.  Detecting evolutionary forces in language change , 2016, Nature.

[42]  Michael Cysouw,et al.  The Entropy of Words - Learnability and Expressivity across More than 1000 Languages , 2017, Entropy.

[43]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Kinship Categories Across Languages Reflect General Communicative Principles , 2012, Science.

[44]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[45]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Complexity/informativeness trade-off in the domain of indefinite pronouns , 2021, CogSci.

[46]  B. Berlin,et al.  Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. , 1994 .

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

[48]  Yang Xu,et al.  Numeral Systems Across Languages Support Efficient Communication: From Approximate Numerosity to Recursion , 2020, Open Mind.

[49]  Yulia Tsvetkov,et al.  Where New Words Are Born: Distributional Semantic Analysis of Neologisms and Their Semantic Neighborhoods , 2020, SCIL.

[50]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Selection Model of , 2022 .

[51]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Languages adapt to their contextual niche , 2014, Language and Cognition.

[52]  J. Schilperoord,et al.  Linguistics , 1999 .

[53]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Quantifying the dynamics of topical fluctuations in language , 2018, Language Dynamics and Change.

[54]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Languages Support Efficient Communication about the Environment: Words for Snow Revisited , 2016, PloS one.

[55]  Terry Regier,et al.  Language evolution in the lab tends toward informative communication , 2014, CogSci.

[56]  David Poeppel,et al.  The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[58]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Color naming reflects both perceptual structure and communicative need , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[59]  Michael Gasser,et al.  The Origins of Arbitrariness in Language , 2004 .

[60]  Asifa Majid,et al.  Semantic systems in closely related languages , 2015 .

[61]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency , 2017 .

[62]  Thomas L Griffiths,et al.  Words as alleles: connecting language evolution with Bayesian learners to models of genetic drift , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[63]  Jennifer Culbertson,et al.  Let's talk (efficiently) about us: Person systems achieve near-optimal compression , 2021 .

[64]  Alexandre François,et al.  Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages , 2008 .

[65]  Yang Xu,et al.  Semantic Typology and Efficient Communication , 2018 .

[66]  S. Kirby,et al.  Language evolution in the laboratory , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Ease of learning explains semantic universals , 2019, Cognition.

[68]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Unsupervised Multilingual Word Embeddings , 2018, EMNLP.

[69]  Henning Andersen The structure of drift , 1990 .

[70]  Roger Levy,et al.  Communicative Efficiency, Uniform Information Density, and the Rational Speech Act Theory , 2018, CogSci.

[71]  Terry Regier,et al.  Word Meanings across Languages Support Efficient Communication , 2015 .

[72]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[73]  G. Altmann Science and Linguistics , 1993 .

[74]  Riccardo Fusaroli,et al.  The emergence of systematicity: How environmental and communicative factors shape a novel communication system , 2018, Cognition.