A Mathematical Model of Prediction-Driven Instability: How Social Structure Can Drive Language Change
I discuss a stochastic model of language learning and change. During a syntactic change, each speaker makes use of constructions from two different idealized grammars at variable rates. The model incorporates regularization in that speakers have a slight preference for using the dominant idealized grammar. It also includes incrementation: The population is divided into two interacting generations. Children can detect correlations between age and speech. They then predict where the population’s language is moving and speak according to that prediction, which represents a social force encouraging children not to sound out-dated. Both regularization and incrementation turn out to be necessary for spontaneous language change to occur on a reasonable time scale and run to completion monotonically. Chance correlation between age and speech may be amplified by these social forces, eventually leading to a syntactic change through prediction-driven instability.
KeywordsLanguage variation Language change Incrementation Mathematical model Social structure Prediction-driven instability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Adger D. (2003) Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T. (2007). The gradience of the dative alternation. In L. Uyechi, & L. H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford: CSLI Publiscations. http://www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/publications/index.html.
- Briscoe, E. J. (2002). Grammatical acquisition and linguistic selection. In E. J. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/ejb/creo-evol.ps.gz.
- Ellegård A. (1953) The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English, Gothenburg studies in English. Almqvist and Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Gibson E., Wexler K. (1994) Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 407–454Google Scholar
- Labov W. (1994) Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Labov W. (2001) Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Mitchener, W. G. (2009a). Mean-field and measure-valued differential equation models for language variation and change in a spatially distributed population, submitted.Google Scholar
- Mitchener, W. G. (2009b). A stochastic model of language change through social structure and prediction-driven instability, submitted.Google Scholar
- Niyogi, P., & Berwick, R. C. (1997). A dynamical systems model for language change. Complex Systems, 11, 161–204, ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/1500-1999/AIM-1515.ps.Z.Google Scholar
- Radford A. (2004) Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Tesar B., Smolensky P. (2000) Learnability in optimality theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Yang C. D. (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar