Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T23:25:39.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The emergence of duality of patterning through iterated learning: Precursors to phonology in a visual lexicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Alex Del Giudice
Alex Del Giudice*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California San Diego. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Duality of Patterning, one of Hockett's (1960) proposed design features unique to human language, refers in part to the arrangements of a relatively small stock of distinguishable meaningless sounds which are combined to create a potentially infinite set of morphemes. Literature regarding the emergence of this design feature is less abundant than that exploring other levels of structure as focus is more often given to the emergence of syntax. In an effort to explore where combinatorial structure of meaningless elements arises the results of two pilot experiments are presented within which we observe human participants modifying a small lexicon of visual symbols through a process of iterated learning. As this lexicon evolves there is evidence that it becomes simpler and more learnable, more easily transmitted. I argue that these features are a consequence of spontaneous emergence of combinatorial, sub-lexical structure in the lexicon, that the pattern of emergence is more complex than the most widely espoused explanation suggests, and I propose ways in which future work can build on what we learn from these pilot experiments to confirm this hypothesis.

Keywords

Iterated learningexperimental methodologiessub-lexical structure
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Special Issue 4: New perspectives on duality of patterning , December 2012 , pp. 381 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Boer, B. 2001. The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Boer, B., Sandler, W. & Kirby, S.. 2012. New perspectives on duality of patterning: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Cognition 4(4).Google Scholar
Fay, N., Garrod, S. & Roberts, L.. 2008. The fitness and functionality of culturally evolved communication systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 363. 3553–3561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, W. T. 2000. The evolution of speech: A comparative review. Trends in Cognitive Science 4. 258–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galantucci, B. 2005. An experimental study of the emergence of human communication system. Cognitive Science 29. 737–767.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., Fay, N., Lee, J., Oberlander, J. & MacLeod, T.. 2007. Foundations of representation: Where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 31(6). 961–987.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B.. 1989. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 28. 501–518.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96.Google Scholar
Keogh, E. & Pazzani, M.. 2001. Derivative dynamic time warping. Proceedings of the First International SIAM Conference on Data Mining, 1–11.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 1999. Function, selection, and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. & Hurford, J. R.. 2002. The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the iterated learning model. In Cangelosi, A. & Parisi, D. (eds.), Simulating the evolution of language, 121–148. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
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 105(31). 10681–10686.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Smith, K. & Brighton, H.. 2004. From UG to universals: Linguistic adaptation through iterated learning. Studies in Language 28. 587–607.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, J. & Lindblom, B.. 1972. Numerical simulations of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Langauge 48. 839–862.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., MacNeilage, P. F. & Studdert-Kennedy, M.. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B. & Dahl, O. (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 181–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1987. Functional parallellism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25. 71–102.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Krakauer, D. & Dress, A.. 1999. An error limit for the evolution of language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266(1433). 2131–2136.Google Scholar
Ouattara, K., Lemasson, A. & Zuberbühler, K.. 2009. Campbell's monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences 106(51). 22026–22031.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P. Y. 2001. Coupled neural maps for the origins of vowel systems. In Dorffner, G., Bischof, H. & Hornik, K. (eds.), Papers from the parasessions on language and behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P. Y. 2006. Self-organization in the evolution of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozelle, L. 2003. The structure of sign language lexicons: Inventory and distribution of handshape and location. University of Washington doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C.. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2). 503–543.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1998. Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: Imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function. In Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Hurford, J. (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language, 161–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 2005. How did language go discrete. In Tallerman, M. (ed.), Language origins – Perspectives on evolution, 48–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Theisen, C. A., Oberlander, J. & Kirby, S.. 2010. Systematicity and arbitrariness in novel communication systems. Interaction Studies 11(1). 14–32.Google Scholar
Verhoef, T. 2012. The origins of duality of patterning in artificial whistled languages. Language and Cognition 4(4).Google Scholar
Verhoef, T., Kirby, S. & Padden, C.. 2011. Cultural emergence of combinatorial structure in an artificial whistled language. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C. & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 483–488. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Yip, M. J. 2006. The search for phonology in other species. Trends in Cognitive Science 10(10). 442–445.Google Scholar
Zuidema, W. & de Boer, B.. 2009. The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics 37(2). 125–144.Google Scholar