Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It may appear counterintuitive to suggest a connection between language evolution and linguistic realism. Only biological objects evolve but linguistic realism holds that natural languages are abstract objects. However, given the fact that currently no approach to language evolution can account satisfactorily for all aspects of language, I suggest that reconsidering the ontological status of natural languages might lead to novel approaches to language evolution puzzles. Most contemporary work on language evolution assumes without argument that natural languages are either biological entities or produced by biological organs (human brains), and focuses on brain evolution, language acquisition, and communication systems of other primates. Yet, so far such approaches have been unable to account for some aspects of grammar. Furthermore, to date little is known about the bio-physiological implementation of natural languages. I suggest that the debate could profit from paying closer attention to the ontological status of language and the exact relationship between language and biology. Finally, I discuss the kinds of evidence used in linguistic research and demonstrate that, contra to widespread belief, the linguistic Platonist is neither relying on inferior evidence nor ruling out evidence that is clearly relevant to linguistic research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".