Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
A Lotka-Volterra model of the evolutionary dynamics of compositionality markers Linguistic Mimicry Simple. The cluster [nd] occurs within the morphologically simple form find and thus does not function as a compositionality marker. Complex. The cluster [nd] spans a morpheme boundary between the base sign and the suffixed , and consequently functions as a compositionality marker signalling morphological complexity. Can formal modelling shed light on how compositionality marker ambiguity evolves? [saɪn-d] [faɪnd] 1a. The model: The colour pattern of wasps signals that they are venomous. 1b. The mimic: Hoverflies, among other species, imitate the colour pattern of wasps in order to appear poisonous as well. 2. The two types of Heliconius butterflies mimic each other to confuse predators.
The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11)
A Lotka-Volterra model of the evolutionary dynamics of compositionality markers2016 •
Morpho-syntactic boundaries can either be signaled by alignment to boundaries in regular prosodic patterns or by being 'irregularly' misaligned, in which case they are often signaled instead through highly dispreferred, or marked, structures such as consonant clusters. In some languages these structures additionally appear in simple forms, which compromises their compositionality-signaling function. This paper models the dynamics of such structures in complex and simple forms by means of a Lotka-Volterra model, which is analyzed evolutionarily. Finally, the evolutionary dynamics of the model are tested against diachronic language data.
Evidence supporting a rich memory for associations suggests that people can store perceptual details in the form of exemplars. The resulting particulate model of category contents allows the application of evolution theory in mod-eling category change, because variation in categorized percepts is reflected in the distribution of exemplars in a category. Within a production-perception feedback loop, variation within an exemplar-based category provides a reserve of variants that can serve as the seeds for shifts in the system over time through random or selection-driven asymmetries in production and perception. Here, three potential pathways for evolutionary change are identified in linguistic categories: pruning of lines of inheritance, blending inheritance and natural selection. Simulations of each of these pathways are shown within a simple exemplar-based model of category production and perception, showing how consideration of evolutionary processes may contribute to our understanding of linguistic category change over time.
International Journal of Primatology
Compositionality, Metaphor, and the Evolution of Language2022 •
One of the great unknowns in language evolution is the transition from unstructured sign combination to grammatical structure. This paper investigates the central — while hitherto overlooked — role of functor–argument metaphor. This type of meta- phor pervades modern language, but is absent in animal communication. It arises from the semantic clash between the default meanings of terms. Functor–argument metaphor became logically possible in protolanguage once sufficient vocabulary and basic compositionality arose, allowing for novel combinations of terms. For exam- ple, the verb to hide, a functor, could be combined not only with a concrete, spatial entity like food as its argument, but also with an abstract, non-spatial one like anger. Through this clash, to hide is reinterpreted as a metaphorical action. Functor–argu- ment metaphor requires the possibility of term combinability and the existence of compositionality. At the same time, it transcends compositionality, forcing a non- literal interpretation. We argue that functor–argument metaphor led the develop- ment of protolanguage into fully-fledged language in multiple ways. Not only did it expand expressiveness, but it drove the development of syntax including the con- ventionalization and fixation of word order, and the development of demonstratives. Thus, functor–argument metaphor fills in multiple gaps in the trajectory from a pro- tolanguage, with only some terms and simple term combinations, to the elaborate grammatical structures of fully-fledged human languages.
In: Cartmill, Erica A.; Roberts, Séan; Lyn, Heidi; Cornish, Hannah (eds.) (2014): The Evolution of Language. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference. Singapore: World Scientific, 106-113.
A Constructionist Approach to the Evolution of Morphological Complexity2014 •
The domain of morphology provides a particularly challenging area of research not only for general linguistics, but also for the study of language evolution. This paper discusses which insights can be gained from the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar (CxG) with regard to the evolution of morphology. It is shown that the CxG model of linguistic knowledge is highly compatible with an emergentist account of morphological complexity.
The origins of human language, with its extraordinarily complex structure and multitude of functions, remains among the most challenging problems for evolutionary biology and the cognitive sciences. Although many will agree progress on this issue would have important consequences for linguistic theory, many remain sceptical about whether the topic is amenable to rigorous, scientific research at all. Complementing recent developments toward better empirical validation, this thesis explores how formal models from both linguistics and evolutionary biology can help to constrain the many theories and scenarios in this field. I first review a number of foundational mathematical models from three branches of evolutionary biology -- population genetics, evolutionary game theory and social evolution theory -- and discuss the relation between them. This discussion yields a list of ten requirements on evolutionary scenarios for language, and highlights the assumptions implicit in the various formalisms. I then look in more details at one specific step-by-step scenario, proposed by Ray Jackendoff, and consider the linguistic formalisms that could be used to characterise the evolutionary transitions from one stage to the next. I conclude from this review that the main challenges in evolutionary linguistics are to explain how three major linguistic innovations -- combinatorial phonology, compositional semantics and hierarchical phrase-structure -- could have spread through a population where they are initially rare. In the second part of the thesis, I critically evaluate some existing formal models of each of these major transitions and present three novel alternatives. In an abstract model of the evolution of speech sounds (viewed as trajectories through an acoustic space), I show that combinatorial phonology is a solution for robustness against noise and the only evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). In a model of the evolution of simple lexicons in a noisy environment, I show that the optimal lexicon uses a structured mapping from meanings to sounds, providing a rudimentary compositional semantics. Lexicons with this property are also ESS's. Finally, in a model of the evolution and acquisition of context-free grammars, I evaluate the conditions under which hierarchical phrase-structure will be favoured by natural selection, or will be the outcome of a process of cultural evolution. In the last chapter of the thesis, I discuss the implications of these models for the debates in linguistics on innateness and learnability, and on the nature of language universals. A mainly negative point to make is that formal learnability results cannot be used as evidence for an innate, language-specific specialisation for language. A positive point is that with the evolutionary models of language, we can begin to understand how universal properties and tendencies in natural languages can result from the intricate interaction between innate learning biases and a process of cultural evolution over many generations.
Background: For a long time biologists and linguists have been noticing surprising similarities between the evolution of life forms and languages. Most of the proposed analogies have been rejected. Some, however, have persisted, and some even turned out to be fruitful, inspiring the transfer of methods and models between biology and linguistics up to today. Most proposed analogies were based on a comparison of the research objects rather than the processes that shaped their evolution. Focusing on process-based analogies, however, has the advantage of minimizing the risk of overstating similarities, while at the same time reflecting the common strategy to use processes to explain the evolution of complexity in both fields. Results: We compared important evolutionary processes in biology and linguistics and identified processes specific to only one of the two disciplines as well as processes which seem to be analogous, potentially reflecting core evolutionary processes. These new process-based analogies support novel methodological transfer, expanding the application range of biological methods to the field of historical linguistics. We illustrate this by showing (i) how methods dealing with incomplete lineage sorting offer an introgression-free framework to analyze highly mosaic word distributions across languages; (ii) how sequence similarity networks can be used to identify composite and borrowed words across different languages; (iii) how research on partial homology can inspire new methods and models in both fields; and (iv) how constructive neutral evolution provides an original framework for analyzing convergent evolution in languages resulting from common descent (Sapir's drift). Conclusions: Apart from new analogies between evolutionary processes, we also identified processes which are specific to either biology or linguistics. This shows that general evolution cannot be studied from within one discipline alone. In order to get a full picture of evolution, biologists and linguists need to complement their studies, trying to identify cross-disciplinary and discipline-specific evolutionary processes. The fact that we found many process-based analogies favoring transfer from biology to linguistics further shows that certain biological methods and models have a broader scope than previously recognized. This opens fruitful paths for collaboration between the two disciplines. Reviewers: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle and Eugene V. Koonin.
i. Two paradoxes Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM), Construction Morphology (CxM), Amorphous morphology (A-morphM): There are no morphemes BUT there is morphology. (Inflectional) morphemes are listed as markings (exponents) without meaning in the lexicon. Thus, e.g., PFM defines form and meaning based on the paradigm function (PF): PF(áL,σñ) = áR,σñ (Stewart & Stump 2007). The PF value of a paradigm cell áL,σñ of the lexeme (L) is the pairing of this cell's realization R with the morphosyntactic property set σ. Distributed Morphology (DM): There is no morphology by itself BUT there are abstract morphemes. DM relies on syntactic structures and 'morpheme' is an abstract unit that refers to a syntactic terminal node and its content, not to the phonological expression of that terminal. Morphology is distributed between syntax and phonology. Vocabulary items are exponents that relate form and meaning but they insert late (post syntactically). ii. Our view There is morphology and there are morphemes. There are three possible ways to approach the relation of meaning and form in morphology: A. Form and meaning emerge simultaneously B. The association is from meaning to form C. The association is from form to meaning The most important difference between these scenarios consists in the fact that in scenarios B and C meaning may be assigned at the level of word, i.e. one may claim that morphemes do not have meaning of their own or even that there are no morphemes at all (in scenario B). Language is a positional system. With respect to meaning, (forms of) morphemes can be evaluated: 1) in isolation (as building blocks of morphology, e.g. English-s,-en,-ed,-er); 2) based on their position in the word form (i.e. templatically, e.g. inflection is outside derivation; prefixes, suffixes, infixes, interfixes are also established positionally); 3) based on combinations with other morphemes, e.g. E. writer -s but not *small-er-s, thus two different-er suffixes, one that derives nouns (agents) and one that expresses comparative degree of adjectives. Morphemes associate form and meaning, like in scenario A, but this association is not trivial and involves scenarios B and C at the different stages of derivation and in comprehension and production.
Interventions: ICA Theme Book 2017
How Do We Intervene in the Stubborn Persistence of Patriarchy in Communication Scholarship?International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing (IJCSMC)
A Comparative Study of Symmetric Key Algorithms2023 •
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Cryo-EM Structure of AAV2 Rep68 bound to integration site AAVS1: Insights into the mechanism of DNA melting2024 •
https://www.sismel.it/pubblicazioni/2028-el-comentario-legitur-a-terencio
El comentario «Legitur» a Terencio, edición crítica y estudio de Iñigo Ruiz Arzalluz, Firenze, SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2024 («Millennio medievale» 129, «Testi» 36), pp. lxxviii-232.Journalism & Mass Communication Educator
Journalism Education in Brazil: Developments and Neglected IssuesChaos, Solitons & Fractals
Effects of noise sourcing on organic memristive devices2020 •
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Relative Leg Length as a Risk Factor for Hypertension and Diabetes in Egyptian Adults2018 •
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Wulfert de Greef. Of One Tree: Calvin on Jews and Christians in the Context of the Late Middle Ages