Evolution in a Changing Environment

Following on from the Baronchelli et al paper a couple of months ago, PLOS ONE has published  “Evolution in a Changing Environment” by the same authors. The conclusions of the 2 papers both argue that if language is rapidly changing (and it is), then generalist, neutral genes, rather than specialist ones, are advantageous. This argues that language is likely more the result of general cognitive abilities as language change happens so rapidly. In contrast to the last paper though, this one focuses much less on (specifically) linguistic change, and features a super sexy stochastic interacting particle model (if you’re into that sort of thing).

Abstract:

We propose a simple model for genetic adaptation to a changing environment, describing a fitness landscape characterized by two maxima. One is associated with “specialist” individuals that are adapted to the environment; this maximum moves over time as the environment changes. The other maximum is static, and represents “generalist” individuals not affected by environmental changes. The rest of the landscape is occupied by “maladapted” individuals. Our analysis considers the evolution of these three subpopulations. Our main result is that, in presence of a sufficiently stable environmental feature, as in the case of an unchanging aspect of a physical habitat, specialists can dominate the population. By contrast, rapidly changing environmental features, such as language or cultural habits, are a moving target for the genes; here, generalists dominate, because the best evolutionary strategy is to adopt neutral alleles not specialized for any specific environment. The model we propose is based on simple assumptions about evolutionary dynamics and describes all possible scenarios in a non-trivial phase diagram. The approach provides a general framework to address such fundamental issues as the Baldwin effect, the biological basis for language, or the ecological consequences of a rapid climate change.

Baronchelli A, Chater N, Christiansen MH, Pastor-Satorras R (2013) Evolution in a Changing Environment. PLoS ONE 8(1): e52742. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052742

 

The Role of Foreigner-Directed Speech in Language Evolution

After all of this talk of spurious cross-cultural correlations it might be time to direct the discussion back to ways to resolve an over-reliance on statistical tendencies. Sean and James did a workshop on this at this year’s EvoLang about how constructive, idiographic and experimental approaches also need to be considered when investigating how linguistic and social structure are linked.

With this in mind, I present my poster from EHBEA earlier this year, which explains some experiments I did for my MSc thesis. I was trying to test the hypothesis that more second language speakers in a linguistic population might effect the cultural transmission of that language. This hypothesis is an attempt to explain the large-scale correlations found by Lupyan & Dale (2010) that showed that the the larger a language population the less morphologically complex that language will be. The idea being that larger language populations will have more second language speakers, and will therefore be more susceptible to the learning biases of adult learners.

There is some experimental evidence about the differences between adult and child learners, some of which I look at here, but in this study I looked at the role foreigner directed speech might have on the use of language in a community with a lot of second language speakers.


Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one5(1), e8559.

The origin of language in gesture–speech unity

In honor of a new book entitled “How Language Began” by David McNeil, the author has been blogging about the origin of language in gesture–speech unity over at the Cambridge Extra/Linguist List part of the CUP site. These blog posts are lengthy, thought provoking and include very thorough reading lists for the interested.

Part 1: Language and Imagery

Part 2: Gesture-first

Part 3: Mead’s Loop (1)

Part 4: Mead’s Loop (2). Wider consequences.

I’m not sure if there’s any more coming, but I wish more authors and professors would take the time to have a good old blog on open access platforms about their work.

miR-941 – The new Language Gene

Sorry for the hyperbole in the title, but now I’ve got your attention – Researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found a gene which is implicated in human brain development which humans have, but chimpanzees don’t.

The study compared the human genome to 11 other species of mammals, including chimpanzees, gorillas, mice and rats, and found that miR-941 is unique to humans.

miR-941 is now being slated as a gene that contributed to how early humans developed tool use and language. This gene, in contrast to the likes of FoxP2, has a very specific function rather than being a gene that down regulates other functions. It is said to be the only gene discovered that has such a specific function while only being present in humans. It is active in two areas of the brain that control our linguistic abilities and also our decision making.

The authors estimate that it emerged between six and one million years ago and that it emerged fully functional out of non-coding genetic material (“junk DNA”) in a very short interval of evolutionary time.

I’m sure the studies where they implant it into mice will start soon. Watch this space.

References

Hu, H. Y., He, L., Fominykh, K., Yan, Z., Guo, S., Zhang, X., … & Khaitovich, P. (2012). Evolution of the human-specific microRNA miR-941. Nature Communications3, 1145.

Cultural Evolution: Headspace with Dr. Kenny Smith

Edinburgh’s student radio station, Fresh Air, has a show called “Headspace” which aims to discuss ideas related to how we perceive, act, learn, communicate and think. Today’s episode was all about Cultural Evolution and features an extended discussion with Kenny Smith.

Readers can also listen to our very own Rachael Bailes talking about Animal Learning a couple of weeks ago:

Arguments against a “prometheus” scenario

The Biological Origin of Linguistic Diversity:

From some of the minds that brought you  Chater et al. (2009) comes a new and exciting paper in PlosONE.

Chater et al. (2009) used a computational model to show that biological adaptations for language are impossible because language changes too rapidly through cultural evolution for natural selection to be able to act.

This new paper, Baronchelli et al. (2012), uses similar models to first argue that if language changes quickly then “neutral genes” are selected for because biological evolution cannot act upon linguistic features when they are too much of a “moving target”. Secondly they show that if language changes slowly in order to facilitate coding of linguistic features in the genome, then two isolated subpopulations who originally spoke the same language will diverge biologically through genetic assimilation after they linguistically diverge, which they inevitably will.

The paper argues that because we can observe so much diversity in the world’s languages, but yet children can acquire any language they are immersed in, only the model which supports the selection of “neutral genes” is plausible. Because of this, a hypothesis in which domain general cognitive abilities facilitate language rather than a hypothesis for a biologically specified, special-purpose language system is much more plausible.

A Prometheus scenario:

Baronchelli et al. (2012) use the results of their models to argue against what they call a “Prometheus” scenario. This is a scenario in which “a single mutation (or very few) gave rise to the language faculty in an early human ancestor, whose descendants then dispersed across the globe.”

I wonder if “prometheus” scenario an established term in this context because I can’t find much by googling it. It seems an odd term to use given that Prometheus was the titan who “stole” fire and other cultural tools from the Gods to be used by humans. Since Prometheus was a Titan, he couldn’t pass his genes on to humans, and rather the beginning and proliferation of fire and civilization happened through a process of learning and cultural transmission. I know this is just meant to be an analogy and presumably the promethian aspect of it is alluding to it suddenly happening, but I can’t help but feel that the term “Prometheus scenario” should be given to the hypothesis that language is the result of cultual evolution acting upon domain general processes, rather than one which supports a genetically-defined language faculty in early humans.

References. 

Baronchelli A, Chater N, Pastor-Satorras R, & Christiansen MH (2012). The biological origin of linguistic diversity. PloS one, 7 (10) PMID: 23118922

Chater, N., Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2009). Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(4), 1015- 1020.

Taking the “icon” out of Emoticon

For some years now Simon Garrod and Nicolas Fay, among others, have been looking at the emergence of symbolic graphical symbols out of iconic ones using communication experiments which simulate repeated use of a symbol.

Garrod et al. (2007) use a ‘pictionary’ style paradigm where participants are to graphically depict one of 16 concepts without using words,  so that their partner can identify it. This process is repeated to see if repeated usage would take advantage of the  shared memory of the representation rather than the representation itself to the point where a iconic depiction of an item could become an arbitrary, symbolic one.

Garrod et al. (2007) showed that simple repetition is not enough to allow an arbitrary system to emerge and that feedback and interaction are required between communicators. The amount of interaction afforded to participants was shown to affect the emergence of signs due to a process of grounding. The signs that emerged from this process of interaction were shown to be arbitrary as participants not involved directly in the interaction were shown to have trouble interpreting the outcome signs.

The experimental evidence then shows that icons do indeed evolve into symbols as a consequence of the  shared memory of the representation rather than the representation itself.  Which is all well and good, but can this process be seen in the real world? YES!

I was talking to a friend on skype and he started typing repeated right round brackets:

))))))))

At first I just thought he had some problem with keys sticking on his keyboard, but after he did it two or three times I finally asked. To which he alluded that that they were smilies. Upon further questioning, it seems that this has become a norm for Russian internet chat that their emoticons have lost their eyes – presumably in the same process as Garrod et al. (2007) showed above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have also created an intensification system based on this slightly more arbitrary symbol, where by the more brackets repeated the happier or sadder you are. Among those in the UK and America, the need to intensify an emoticon has stayed well within the rhealms of iconicity with : D meaning “very happy” and D: meaning “oh God, WHHHHHYYYYY”. Japan have a completely different emoticon system altogether which focusses on the eyes:  ^_^ meaning happy and u_u meaning sad. Some of argued that this is because in Japan people tend to look to the eyes for emotional cues, whereas Americans tend to look to the mouth, as backed up by SCIENCE.

I’d be interested to see if norms have been established in other countries, either iconic or not.

Refs

Garrod S, Fay N, Lee J, Oberlander J, & Macleod T (2007). Foundations of representation: where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive science, 31 (6), 961-87 PMID: 21635324

Yuki, M., Maddux, W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the windows to the soul the same in the East and West? Cultural differences in using the eyes and mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and the United States Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (2), 303-311 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.004

1st International Winter School on Evolution

I don’t think anyone’s posted this yet:

1st International Winter School on Evolution – March 11th – 15th, 2013 University of Lisbon

The International Winter School on Evolution aims to better prepare a future generation for inter- and transdisciplinary evolution research by providing courses on cutting edge research in biological and sociocultural evolutionary sciences for Master, Doctoral and Postdoctoral students. Emphasis lies on topics that are currently underrepresented in (post)graduate curricula.

International experts will teach 9 courses on critical aspects of biological and socio-cultural evolution. The Winter School courses are centred around the following themes:

  • Macroevolution and the major transitions
  • Symbiogenesis, lateral gene transfer and hybridization
  • Language evolution

Visiting speakers include:

  • Michael Arnold
  • Folmer Bokma
  • Bill Croft
  • Daniel Dor
  • William Martin
  • Eörs Szathmáry
  • Mónica Tamariz
  • Douglas P. Zook

More info here: http://evolutionschool.fc.ul.pt

DGfS Summer School – Language Development: Evolution, Change, Acquisition

Thought y’all might be interested in the below. Quite a lot of language evolution stuff going on and some big names.

DGfS Summer School – Language Development: Evolution, Change, Acquisition 

Date: 12-Aug-2013 – 30-Aug-2013
Location: Humboldt-University Berlin, Germany
Meeting URL: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/dgfs_sommerschule/ 

Meeting Description:

We invite advanced students (M.A. or Ph.D. level) in Linguistics and related fields to attend this 3-week event in August 2013. It is co-organized by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, and the Excellence Cluster 264 – TOPOI. The Summer School offers courses in different areas of linguistics, genetics, anthropology and archeology, which look at language from the point of view of language evolution, language change, and language acquisition. The courses will be taught by distinguished researchers from Germany, Europe and the USA. The summer school is of course also open to more advanced scientists who are interested in learning about language development. Language of instruction is English and German. For further information see the summer school’s website:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/dgfs_sommerschule/

Courses (language evolution in bold):

The origins and evolution of language (Maggie Tallerman) 
Empirical approaches to the cultural evolution of language (Hannah Cornish) 
Genes and language: from molecules to linguistic diversity (Dan Dediu & Sonja Vernes) 
Emergence and development of writing systems (F. Kammerzell) 
Empirical approaches to the diversity and disparity of languages (Michael Dunn) 
Mathematical and Computational Models of Language Evolution (Gerhard Jäger) 
Linguistics und Human Prehistory (Paul Heggarty) 
Sign Languages: Evolution and Change (Markus Steinbach) 
Diachronic change in four millenia: the language history of Egyptian-Coptic (Daniel Werning)
Approaches to Historical Morphology and Syntax (Alice C. Harris)
Efficiency and extravagance in morphosyntactic change (Martin Haspelmath)
Semantic Change (Dirk Geeraerts)
Indo-European linguistics revisited (Silvia Luraghi)
In search of stability in language contact. (Pieter Muysken)
Diachronic Phonology (Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero & Silke Hamann)
The social foundation of language change (Daniel Schreier)
Sprachtheoretische und didaktische Aspekte des Schriftspracherwerbs (Christa Röber)
The acquisition of sign language: influences from modality and experience (Gary Morgan)
Theoretical and Empirical approaches to first language acquisition (Heike Behrens)
Language attrition and bilingual development (Monika Schmid)
Multimodal multilingualism: Gestures, second language acquisition, bilingualism (Marianne Gullberg)
Bilingualism and second language learning: Cognitive and neuropsychological perspectives (Janet van Hell)