Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals

Abstract

Languages vary widely but not without limit. The central goal of linguistics is to describe the diversity of human languages and explain the constraints on that diversity. Generative linguists following Chomsky have claimed that linguistic diversity must be constrained by innate parameters that are set as a child learns a language 1,2 . In contrast, other linguists following Greenberg have claimed that there are statistical tendencies for co-occurrence of traits reflecting universal systems biases [3][4][5] , rather than absolute constraints or parametric variation. Here we use computational phylogenetic methods to address the nature of constraints on linguistic diversity in an evolutionary framework 6 . First, contrary to the generative account of parameter setting, we show that the evolution of only a few word-order features of languages are strongly correlated. Second, contrary to the Greenbergian generalizations, we show that most observed functional dependencies between traits are lineage-specific rather than universal tendencies. These findings support the view that-at least with respect to word order-cultural evolution is the primary factor that determines linguistic structure, with the current state of a linguistic system shaping and constraining future states.Human language is unique amongst animal communication systems not only for its structural complexity but also for its diversity at every level of structure and meaning. There are about 7,000 extant languages, some with just a dozen contrastive sounds, others with more than 100, some with complex patterns of word formation, others with simple words only, some with the verb at the beginning of the sentence, some in the middle, and some at the end. Understanding this diversity and the systematic constraints on it is the central goal of linguistics. The generative approach to linguistic variation has held that linguistic diversity can be explained by changes in parameter settings. Each of these parameters controls a number of specific linguistic traits. For example, the setting 'heads first' will cause a language both to place verbs before objects ('kick the ball'), and prepositions before nouns ('into the goal') 1,7 . According to this account, language change occurs when child learners simplify or regularize by choosing parameter settings other than those of the parental generation. Across a few generations such changes might work through a population, effecting language change across all the associated traits. Language change should therefore be relatively fast, and the traits set by one parameter must co-vary 8 .In contrast, the statistical approach adopted by Greenbergian linguists samples languages to find empirically co-occurring traits. These cooccurring traits are expected to be statistical tendencies attributable to universal cognitive or systems biases. Among the most robust of these tendencies are the so-called ''word-order universals'' 3 linking the order of elements in a clause. Dryer has tested these generalizations on a worldwide sample...

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

“…However, we do not find any correlation between the structural linguistic distances and the geographical distances predicted by any model of migration. This probably reflects the paucity of structural data available for the Bantu languages together with the absence of variation in such data [38]. Therefore, more informative structural data, comparable with those collected by Reesink et al [39], would be needed to investigate the complex expansion history of the Bantu languages.…”

“…summary in [37]) [38], we applied our method to eight structural features reported for 66 Bantu languages [38]. However, we do not find any correlation between the structural linguistic distances and the geographical distances predicted by any model of migration.…”

Broad supernatural punishment but not moralizing high gods precede the evolution of political complexity in Austronesia

“…Phylogenetic methods have revolutionized the biological sciences and have recently been used to make inferences about cultural evolution ranging from the kinship system of Proto-Indo-European and Austronesian cultures [14], to the evolution of political complexity across Austronesia [15], and the determinants of language structure [16]. Here we use a phylogenetic method to first test whether beliefs in MHGs and BSP coevolve with political complexity.…”

Clues to language evolution from a massive dataset with typology, phonology, and vocabulary from many languages

“…But correlations between features are observed that go beyond those normally discussed in typology, or those observed by Dunn et al (2011). Interestingly, there are also some modest cross-correlations between grammatical features and phonemes.…”

“…Biases can be seen either in the synchronic patterns of language features today, or in the diachronic patterns of transition probabilities between features as languages culturally evolve (e.g. Dunn et al, 2011). Patterns that reveal biases may be found in any aspect of language, e.g.…”