The Role of Social Network Structure in the Emergence of Linguistic Structure.
Grammatical structure
Input variability
Language evolution
Linguistic diversity
Network structure
Social structure
Journal
Cognitive science
ISSN: 1551-6709
Titre abrégé: Cogn Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7708195
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
09
02
2020
revised:
12
06
2020
accepted:
26
06
2020
entrez:
19
8
2020
pubmed:
19
8
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Social network structure has been argued to shape the structure of languages, as well as affect the spread of innovations and the formation of conventions in the community. Specifically, theoretical and computational models of language change predict that sparsely connected communities develop more systematic languages, while tightly knit communities can maintain high levels of linguistic complexity and variability. However, the role of social network structure in the cultural evolution of languages has never been tested experimentally. Here, we present results from a behavioral group communication study, in which we examined the formation of new languages created in the lab by micro-societies that varied in their network structure. We contrasted three types of social networks: fully connected, small-world, and scale-free. We examined the artificial languages created by these different networks with respect to their linguistic structure, communicative success, stability, and convergence. Results did not reveal any effect of network structure for any measure, with all languages becoming similarly more systematic, more accurate, more stable, and more shared over time. At the same time, small-world networks showed the greatest variation in their convergence, stabilization, and emerging structure patterns, indicating that network structure can influence the community's susceptibility to random linguistic changes (i.e., drift).
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12876Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Cognitive Science Society (CSS).
Références
Bahlmann, M. D. (2014). Geographic network diversity: How does it affect exploratory innovation? Industry and Innovation, 21(7-8), 633-654.
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512.
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2016). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R; 2010. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4
Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change, 3(1), 1-27.
Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194-1197.
Coward, F. (2010). Small worlds, material culture and ancient Near Eastern social networks. Social brain, distributed mind, 449-484.British Academy.
Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2012). Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(03n04), 1150017.
Derex, M., & Boyd, R. (2016). Partial connectivity increases cultural accumulation within groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(11), 2982-2987.
Fagyal, Z., Swarup, S., Escobar, A. M., Gasser, L., & Lakkaraju, K. (2010). Centers and peripheries: Network roles in language change. Lingua, 120(8), 2061-2079.
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(12), 7821-7826.
Gong, T., Baronchelli, A., Puglisi, A., & Loreto, V. (2012). Exploring the roles of complex networks in linguistic categorization. Artificial Life, 18(1), 107-121.
Granito, C., Tehrani, J., Kendal, J., & Scott-Phillips, T. (2019). Style of pictorial representation is shaped by intergroup contact. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 1, e8.
Granovetter, M. (1976). Network sampling: Some first steps. American Journal of Sociology, 81(6), 1287-1303.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1983), 201-233.
Halekoh, U., & Højsgaard, S. (2014). A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models - The R package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(9), 1-32.
Johnson, A. W., & Earle, T. K. (Eds.). (2000). The evolution of human societies: From foraging group to Agrarian state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ke, J., Gong, T., & Wang, W. S. (2008). Language change and social networks. Communications in Computational Physics, 3(4), 935-949.
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(31), 10681-10686.
Kirby, S., Tamariz, M., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2015). Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition, 141, 87-102.
Kurvers, R. H. J. M., Krause, J., Croft, D. P., Wilson, A. D. M., & Wolf, M. (2014). The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: Emerging issues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(6), 326-335.
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707-710.
Liu, B.-S.-C., Madhavan, R., & Sudharshan, D. (2005). DiffuNET: The impact of network structure on diffusion of innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(2), 240-262.
Lou-Magnuson, M., & Onnis, L. (2018). Social network limits language complexity. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 2790-2817.
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE, 5(1), e8559.
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016). Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 649-660.
Meir, I., Israel, A., Sandler, W., Padden, C. A., & Aronoff, M. (2012). The influence of community on language structure: Evidence from two young sign languages. Linguistic Variation, 12(2), 247-291.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(02), 339-384.
Nettle, D. (1999). Using social impact theory to simulate language change. Lingua, 108(2), 95-117.
Nettle, D. (2012). Social scale and structural complexity in human languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367(1597), 1829-1836.
R Core Team. (2016). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/
Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2019a). Compositional structure can emerge without generational transmission. Cognition, 182, 151-164.
Raviv, L., Meyer, A. S., & Lev-Ari, S. (2019b). Larger communities create more systematic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1907), 20191262.
Reali, F., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Simpler grammar, larger vocabulary: How population size affects language. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1871), 20172586.
Roberts, S. G., & Winters, J. (2012). Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(2), 89-112.
Spike, M. (2017). Population size, learning, and innovation determine linguistic complexity. In G. Gunzelmann A. Howes T. Tenbrink & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1108-1113). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Trudgill, P. (1992). Dialect typology and social structure. In E. H. Jahr (Ed.), Language contact: Theoretical and empirical studies (pp. 195-212). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trudgill, P. (2002). Linguistic and social typology. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 707-728). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Trudgill, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 98-109). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Vogt, P. (2007). Group size effects on the emergence of compositional structures in language. In F. A. E. Costa, L. M. Rocha, E. Costa, I. Harvey, & A. Coutinho (Eds.), Advances in artificial life (pp. 405-414). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Vogt, P. (2009). Modeling interactions between language evolution and demography. Human Biology, 81(2), 237-258.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.
Wichmann, S., Stauffer, D., Schulze, C., & Holman, E. W. (2008). Do language change rates depend on population size? Advances in Complex Systems, 11(03), 357-369.
Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117(3), 543-578.
Zubek, J., Denkiewicz, M., Barański, J., Wróblewski, P., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Plewczynski, D. (2017). Social adaptation in multi-agent model of linguistic categorization is affected by network information flow. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182490.