The 30th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing will take place March 30 – April 1, 2017 at MIT, Cambridge MA. The theme of the Special Session is Language processing and language evolution.
Abstracts for papers and posters are due December 12, 2016.
Michael Dunn, Uppsala University, Sweden
Maryia Fedzechkina, University of Arizona
Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago
Adele Goldberg, Princeton University
Simon Kirby, University of Edinburgh
Stephen Levinson, Max Planck Institute, Holland
Emily Morgan, Tufts University
Kaius Sinnemäki, University of Helsinki
Contact e-mail: email@example.com
A forthcoming exhibition in Dresden, Germany entitled “LANGUAGE: THE WORLD OF WORDS, SIGNS, AND GESTURES” will feature an interesting language evolution experiment.
In the experiment, conducted by Dr Christine Cuskley at the University of Edinburgh, you learn an alien language called Ferro. Since the more participants the merrier, you can also learn Ferro from your computer at home!
So if you want to learn Ferro and participate in language evolution research you can do so here!
The group will explore the biological and cultural origins of language, and how they are linked through social interaction. The group, led by Stephen Levinson, Seán Roberts and Mark Dingemanse, will be hosted by the Language and Cognition department.
The visitors include researchers specializing in experimental approaches (Hannah Little, Yasamin Motamedi, Alan Nielsen, Justin Sulik), computational modelling (Kevin Stadler, Bill Thompson), animal communication (Marcus Perlman, Andrea Ravignani), comparative linguistics (Piera Filipi), and conversational interaction (Ashley Micklos).
Tessa Verhoef, who was awarded a VENI grant to study the evolution of linguistic structure, will also join the group. All together, this will be one of the largest groups studying language evolution in the world.
Several senior researchers will visit throughout the period, including Vera Kempe (Abertay University), Monica Tamariz (University of Edinburgh), Gary Lupyan (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Cedric Boeckx (ICREA/Universitat de Barcelona) and Bart de Boer (Vrije Universiteit Brussel).
I’ve been thinking about my draft article, Form, Event, and Text in an Age of Computation. It presents me with the same old rhetorical problem: how to present computation to literary critics? In particular, I want to convince them that literary form is best thought of as being computational in kind. My problem is this: If you’ve already got ‘it’, whatever it is, then my examples make sense. If you don’t, then it’s not clear to me that they do make sense. In particular, cognitive networks are a stretch. Literary criticism just doesn’t give you any useful intuitions of form as being independent of meaning.
Any how, I’ve been thinking about words and about conversation. What I’m thinking is that the connection between signifier and signified is fundamentally computed in the sense that I’m after. It’s not ‘hard-wired’ at all. Rather it’s established dynamically. That’s what the first part of this post is about. The second part then goes on to argue that conversation is fundamentally computational.
This is crude and sketchy. We’ll see.
Words as bindings between sound and sense
What is a word? I’m not even going to attempt a definition, as we all know one when we see it, so to speak. What I will say, however, is that the common-sense core intuition tends to exaggeration their Parmenidean stillness and constancy at the expense of the Heraclitean fluctuation. What does this word mean:
It’s a simple word, an everyday word. Out there in the middle of nowhere, without context, it’s hard to say what it means. I could mean this, it could mean that. It depends.
When I look it up in the dictionary on my computer, New Oxford American Dictionary, it lists three general senses. One, “a ginger root,” is listed as “dated.” The other two senses are the ones I know, and each has a number of possibilities. One set of meanings has to do with things moving and has many alternatives. The other deals with kinds of beings, biological or human. These meanings no doubt developed over time.
And, of course, the word’s appearance can vary widely depending on typeface or how it’s handwritten, either in cursive script or printed. The spoken word varies widely as well, depending on the speaker–male, female, adult, child, etc.–and discourse context. It’s not a fixed object at all.
What I’m suggesting, then, is that this common ‘picture’ is too static:
There we have it, the signifier and the signified packaged together in a little ‘suitcase’ with “sign” as the convenient handle for the package. It gives the impression the sentences are little ‘trains’ of meaning, with one box connected to the next in a chain of signifiers.
No one who thinks seriously about it actually thinks that way. But that’s where thinking starts. For that matter, by the time one gets around to distinguishing between signifier and signified one has begun to move away from the static conception. My guess is that the static conception arises from the fact of writing and the existence of dictionaries. There they are, one after another. No matter when you look up a word, it’s there in the same place, having the same definition. It’s a thing, an eternal Parmenidean thing.
Later in The Course in General Linguistics, long after he’s introduced the signifier/signified distinction, de Saussure presents us with this picture :
He begins glossing it as follows (112): “The linguistic fact can therefore be pictured in its totality–i.e. language–as a series of contiguous subdivisions marked off on both the indefinite plane of jumbled ideas (A) and the equally vague plane of sounds (B).” He goes on to note “the somewhat mysterious fact is rather that ‘thought-sound’ implies division, and that language words out its units while taking shape between two shapeless masses.” I rather like that, and I like that he chose undulating waves as his visual image. Continue reading “Words, Binding, and Conversation as Computation”
In a new paper in the Journal of Language Evolution, Tessa Verhoef and I analyse reviewer ratings for papers submitted to the EvoLang conference between 2012 and 2016 . In the most recent conference, we trialed double-blind review for the first time, and we wanted to see if hiding the identity of authors revealed any biases in reviewers’ ratings.
We found that:
- Proportionately few papers are submitted from female first authors.
- In single-blind review, there was no big difference in average ratings for papers by male or female first authors …
- … but female first-authored papers were rated significantly higher than male first authored papers in the double-blind condition.
There are many possible explanations of these findings, but they are indicative of a bias against female authors. This fits with a wider literature of gender biases in science. We suggest that double-blind review is one tool that can help reduce the effects of gender biases, but does not tackle the underlying problem directly. We were pleased to see better representation of women on the most recent EvoLang talks and plenary speaker list, and look forward to making our field more inclusive.
I’ll be appearing at Nineworlds convention as part of Stephanie Rennick’s panel on “Lessons for Academia from Computer Games”. The idea is to talk about ways in which games have informed our research, and here’s some of the things I’ll mention:
A chimp playing a computer game shows us we have flexible brains
Ayumu is a chimpanzee who plays computer games, and they’re REALLY GOOD. In a game where you have to memorise the location of numbers on a screen, they left human participants in the dust (there’s a fun video of this). The original researchers concluded that there was a genetic difference between us and chimpanzees: Chimps had evolved better visual memory for hunting, and we evolved better auditory memory for speaking. However, we wondered if Ayumu could beat experienced gamers. We set up a ‘Chimp Challenge’ online where people could play the game. We found over 60 people who were as good as Ayumu. This suggests that the difference is also due to our experience – humans have very flexible brains that can get good at a lot of different things. More here.
The book is available through print-on-demand publisher Lulu for £23.72. This is the lowest price allowed by the site, and will provide EvoLang with £2.81 for each sale. The book now also has an ISBN: 978-1-326-61450-8.
This book is being made available due to popular demand, but all the papers and abstracts are freely available from the proceedings website, which is the canonical source. Unfortunately, the costs were too great to publish in colour, so the inside of the book is black and white.
So EvoLang is over. But if you missed any of it, the papers are still available online. In celebration of the new digital format, I’ve chosen a number of papers for some post-conference awards (nothing official, just for fun!).
Most viewed papers
The proceedings website received 6,000 page hits, most of them during the conference itself. Here are the top 3 most viewed pages:
Semantic Approximation And Its Effect On The Development Of Lexical Conventions
Bill Noble and Raquel Fernández
Evolution Of What?
Most news coverage
Two papers were covered by Science magazine:
Dendrophobia In Bonobo Comprehension Of Spoken English
Robert Truswell (read the article here)
Most cited paper
One of the advantages of the papers being accessible online, and before the conference, is that other people may cite them. Indeed, on the day EvoLang ended, I received a short piece to review which cited this paper, which therefore gets the prize:
Anatomical Biasing Of Click Learning And Production: An MRI And 3D Palate Imaging Study
Dan Dediu and Scott Moisik
Best paper by an academic couple
By my count, there were 4 papers submitted by academic couples. My favorite was a great collaboration on a novel topic: the paper by Monika Pleyer and Michael Pleyer on taking the first steps towards integrating politeness theory and evolution (it was also shortlisted for best talk).
The Evolution Of Im/politeness
Monika Pleyer and Michael Pleyer
Best supplementary materials
8 accepted papers included supplementary materials, which are available on the website. These range from hilarious image stimuli (my favorite: a witch painting a pizza), to a 7-page model explanation, through to netlogo code and raw data and analysis scripts. But I’m afraid I’m going to choose my own paper’s supplementary materials for including videos of people playing Minecraft. For science.
Deictic Tools Can Limit The Emergence Of Referential Symbol Systems
Elizabeth Irvine and Sean Roberts