Social biases can lead to less communicatively efficient languages

References

• Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89(3), 429–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batterink, L. J., & Paller, K. A. (2017). Sleep-based memory processing facilitates grammatical generalization: Evidence from targeted memory reactivation. Brain and Language, 167, 83–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory & Language, 89, 68–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In H. H. Clark (Ed.), Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition, 122, 306–329. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fay, N., Walker, B., Swoboda, N., & Garrod, S. (2018). How to create shared symbols. Cognitive Science, 42, 241–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Chu, B., & Jaeger, T. (2018). Human information processing shapes language change. Psychological Science, 29(1), 72–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., & Jaeger, T. F. (2020). Production efficiency can cause grammatical change: Learners deviate from the input to better balance efficiency against robust message transmission. Cognition, 196, 104115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T., & Newport, E. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109(44), 17897–17902. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215776109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Newport, E., & Jaeger, T. (2016). The miniature artificial language learning paradigm as a complement to typological data [Book Section]. In L. Ortega, A. Tyler, H. Park, & M. Uno (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Georgetown: GUP.
   Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Newport, E., & Jaeger, T. (2017). Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: Evidence from word order and case-marking. Cognitive Science, 41(2), 416–446 . doi: 10.1111/cogs.12346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehér, O., Ritt, N., & Smith, K. (2019). Asymmetric accommodation during interaction leads to the regularisation of linguistic variants. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40(4), 296–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finding Five Corporation. (2019). FindingFive: A web platform for creating, running, and managing your studies in one place. Retrieved from https://www.findingfive.com
   Google Scholar
• Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 933–938.
   Google Scholar
• Hall Hartley, L., & Fedzechkina, M. (2020). Learners’ bias to balance production effort against message uncertainty is independent of their native language. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hasegawa, A. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of Japanese focus particles (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/linguistics/AlumniDissertations/Hasegawa%20dissertation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hudson Kam, C., & Newport, E. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 30–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, G. (2007). Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language, 74–109.
   Google Scholar
• Kanwal, J., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2017). Zipf’s law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort: Language users optimise a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition, 165, 45–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby, S., Griffiths, T., & Smith, K. (2014). Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28, 108–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koplenig, A., Meyer, P., Wolfer, S., & Mueller-Spitzer, C. (2017). The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure–large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort. PloS one, 12(3).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., & Grimm, S. (2019). Predictability of meaning in grammatical encoding: Optional plural marking. Cognition 191. 103953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.022
   Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change volume 2: Social factors (Vol. 29). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, W., Rácz, P., & Roberts, G. (2020). Experience with a linguistic variant affects the acquisition of its sociolinguistic meaning: An alien-language-learning experiment. Cognitive Science, 44(4), e12832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N. (2000). The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 343–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Launey, M. (2011). An introduction to classical Nahuatl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA(106), 21086–21090.
   Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. (2021). Cross-linguistic trade-offs and causal relationships between cues to grammatical subject and object, and the problem of efficiency-related explanations. Frontiers in Psychology(12), 2791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition(126), 313–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A. (2021). Finding Optimal Normalizing Transformations via bestNormalize. The R Journal, 13(1), 310–329. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2021-041
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A., & Cavanaugh, J. E. (2020). Ordered quantile normalization: a semiparametric transformation built for the cross-validation era. Journal of Applied Statistics, 47(13–15), 2312–2327. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2019.1630372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, D. R. (1998). They speak really bad English down South and in New York City. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, D. R. (1999). A language attitude approach to the perception of regional variety. In Handbook of perceptual dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, D. R. (2015). The silliness of the standard. Representaciones. Revista de Estudios sobre Representaciones en Arte, Ciencia y Filosofía, 11(2).
   Google Scholar
• Puskás, G. (2000). Word order in Hungarian: The syntax of Ā-positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, G., & Fedzechkina, M. (2018). Social biases modulate the loss of redundant forms in the cultural evolution of language. Cognition, 171, 194–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, G., & Sneller, B. (2020). Empirical foundations for an integrated study of language evolution. Language Dynamics and Change, 10, 188–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition, 116(3), 444–449. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneller, B., & Roberts, G. (2018). Why some behaviors spread while others don’t: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact. Cognition, 170, 298–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. S., & Roberts, G. (2019). Noise, economy, and the emergence of information structure in a laboratory language. Cognitive Science, 43(2), e12717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallerman, M. (2006). The syntax of Welsh “direct object mutation” revisited. Lingua, 116(11), 1750–1776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Everbroeck, E. (2003). Language type frequency and learnability from a connectionist perspective. Linguistic Typology, 7(1), 1–50. doi: 10.1515/lity.2003.011
   Google Scholar
• Wade, L., & Roberts, G. (2020). Linguistic convergence to observed versus expected behavior in an alien- language map task. Cognitive Science, 44(4), e12829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, A., Grice, M., & Crocker, M. (2006). The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition, 99(2), B63–B72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–195). Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar