Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:09:13.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socio-demographic influences on language structure and change: Not all learners are the same

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Till Bergmann ,
Rick Dale  and
Gary Lupyan
Till Bergmann
Affiliation:
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA [email protected]@ucmerced.eduwww.tillbergmann.comhttp://cognaction.org/rick/
Rick Dale
Affiliation:
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA [email protected]@ucmerced.eduwww.tillbergmann.comhttp://cognaction.org/rick/
Gary Lupyan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706. [email protected]://sapir.psych.wisc.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Now-or-Never bottleneck has important consequence for understanding why languages have the structures they do. However, not addressed by C&C is that the bottleneck may interact with who is doing the learning: While some languages are mostly learned by infants, others have a large share of adult learners. We argue that such socio-demographic differences extend and qualify C&C's thesis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Bentz, C. & Winter, B. (2013) Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3:1–27.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004) The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dale, R. & Lupyan, G. (2012) Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems 15(3–4):1–16. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525911500172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. G. (2005) Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 15th edition. SIL International.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Dale, R. (2010) Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLOS ONE 5(1):1–10. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. & Dale, R. A. (2015) The role of adaptation in understanding linguistic diversity. In: Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors, ed. de Busser, R. & LaPolla, R. J., pp. 287–16. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2001) The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2):125–66. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2001.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2011) Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar