Evolutionary Linguistics: A New Look at an Old Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the evolution of language, focusing on insightsderived from observations and experiments in animals, guided by currenttheoretical problems that were inspired by the generative theory ofgrammar, and carried forward in substantial ways to the present bypsycholinguists working on child language acquisition. We suggest that overthe past few years, there has been a shift with respect to empiricalstudies of animals targeting questions of language evolution. Inparticular, rather than focus exclusively on the ways in which animalscommunicate, either naturally or by means of artificially acquired symbolsystems, more recent work has focused on the underlying computationalmechanisms subserving the language faculty and the ability of nonhumananimals to acquire these in some form. This shift in emphasis has broughtbiologists studying animals in closer contact with linguists studying theformal aspects of language, and has opened the door to a new line ofempirical inquiry that we label evolingo. Here we review some of theexciting new findings in the evolingo area, focusing in particular onaspects of semantics and syntax.With respect to semantics, we suggest thatsome of the apparently distinctive and uniquely linguistic conceptualdistinctions may have their origins in nonlinguistic conceptualrepresentations; as one example, we present data on nonhuman primates andtheir capacity to represent a singular–plural distinction in the absence oflanguage. With respect to syntax, we focus on both statistical andrule-based problems, especially the most recent attempts to exploredifferent layers within the Chomsky hierarchy; here, we discuss work ontamarins and starlings, highlighting differences in the patterns of resultsas well as differences in methodology that speak to potential issues oflearnability. We conclude by highlighting some of the exciting questionsthat lie ahead, as well as some of the methodological challenges that faceboth comparative and developmental studies of language evolution.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".