Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language (original) (raw)

Nature volume 449, pages 713–716 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Human language is based on grammatical rules1,2,3,4. Cultural evolution allows these rules to change over time5. Rules compete with each other: as new rules rise to prominence, old ones die away. To quantify the dynamics of language evolution, we studied the regularization of English verbs over the past 1,200 years. Although an elaborate system of productive conjugations existed in English’s proto-Germanic ancestor, Modern English uses the dental suffix, ‘-ed’, to signify past tense6. Here we describe the emergence of this linguistic rule amidst the evolutionary decay of its exceptions, known to us as irregular verbs. We have generated a data set of verbs whose conjugations have been evolving for more than a millennium, tracking inflectional changes to 177 Old-English irregular verbs. Of these irregular verbs, 145 remained irregular in Middle English and 98 are still irregular today. We study how the rate of regularization depends on the frequency of word usage. The half-life of an irregular verb scales as the square root of its usage frequency: a verb that is 100 times less frequent regularizes 10 times as fast. Our study provides a quantitative analysis of the regularization process by which ancestral forms gradually yield to an emerging linguistic rule.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1965)
    Google Scholar
  2. Lightfoot, D. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution (Blackwell, Oxford, 1999)
    Google Scholar
  3. Clark, R. & Roberts, I. A computational model of language learnability and language change. Linguist. Inq. 24, 299–345 (1993)
    Google Scholar
  4. Abrams, D. & Strogatz, S. Modelling the dynamics of language death. Nature 424, 900 (2003)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  5. Nowak, M. A., Komarova, N. L. & Niyogi, P. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature 417, 611–617 (2002)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  6. Hooper, J. in Current Progress in Historical Linguistics (ed. Christie, W.) 95–105 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976)
    Google Scholar
  7. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579 (2002)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. in Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (ed. Jacobs, J.) 506–569 (de Gruyte, Berlin, 1993)
    Google Scholar
  9. Dougherty, R. C. Natural Language Computing (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1994)
    MATH Google Scholar
  10. Stabler, E. P. & Keenan, E. L. Structural similarity within and among languages. Theor. Comput. Sci. 293, 345–363 (2003)
    Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
  11. Niyogi, P. The Computational Nature of Language Learning and Evolution (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006)
    Book Google Scholar
  12. Labov, W. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83, 344–387 (2007)
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Pinker, S. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language (Basic Books, New York, 1999)
    Google Scholar
  14. Kroch, A. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Lang. Var. Change 1, 199–244 (1989)
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Kroch, A. in Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory (eds Beals, K. et al.) 180–201 (CLS, Chicago, 1994)
    Google Scholar
  16. Pinker, S. The irregular verbs. Landfall 83–85 (Autumn issue, 2000)
    Google Scholar
  17. Bybee, J. Morphology: a Study of Relation Between Meaning and Form (Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1985)
    Book Google Scholar
  18. Greenberg, J. in Current Trends in Linguistics III (eds Sebeok, T. A. et al.) 61–112 (Mouton, The Hague, 1966)
    Google Scholar
  19. Bybee, J. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733 (2006)
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Corbett, G., Hippisley, A., Brown, D. & Marriott, P. in Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (eds Bybee, J. & Hopper, P.) 201–226 (Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2001)
    Book Google Scholar
  21. Hare, M. & Elman, J. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56, 61–98 (1995)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  22. Marcus, G., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R. & Pinker, S. German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognit. Psychol. 29, 189–256 (1995)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  23. Van der Wouden, T. in Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress (eds Magay, T. & Zigány, J.) 363–373 (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1988)
    Google Scholar
  24. Zipf, G. K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, 1949)
    Google Scholar
  25. Miller, G. A. Some effects of intermittent silence. Am. J. Psychol. 70, 311–314 (1957)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  26. Yang, C. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2002)
    Google Scholar
  27. Glushko, M. Towards the quantitative approach to studying evolution of English verb paradigm. Proc. 19th Scand. Conf. Ling. 31, 30–45 (2003)
    Google Scholar
  28. Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English [CD-ROM] 2nd edn. (2000) 〈http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-2/〉

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation and by a grant from the NSF-NIH joint programme in mathematical biology. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is sponsored by J. Epstein. E.L. was supported by the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. We thank S. Pinker, J. Rau, D. Donoghue and A. Presser for discussions, and J. Saragosti for help with visualization.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Erez Lieberman and Jean-Baptiste Michel: These authors contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Mathematics,, Program for Evolutionary Dynamics,
    Erez Lieberman, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak
  2. Department of Applied Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA,
    Erez Lieberman
  3. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA,
    Erez Lieberman
  4. Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA,
    Jean-Baptiste Michel

Authors

  1. Erez Lieberman
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Jean-Baptiste Michel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Joe Jackson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Tina Tang
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Martin A. Nowak
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toErez Lieberman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains the main Supplementary Information for the paper with Supplementary Tables 1-7 and Supplementary Figures S1-S2 with Legends. It includes a table of all the irregular verbs found, as well as their frequency and relevant source text. It also provides a description of the Irregular equation, and Supplementary Discussion of the dynamics within rules and of changes in frequency since Middle English with additional references. (PDF 2657 kb)

Supplementary Data

This file contains Supplementary Data which is a tab-delimited text file containing all of the source data. (TXT 5 kb)

Supplementary Zip File

This file is a zipped version of all the Python source code, enabling the reader to browse the code and reproduce the results using the Supplementary Data as the sole input. (ZIP 162 kb)

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lieberman, E., Michel, JB., Jackson, J. et al. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language.Nature 449, 713–716 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137

Download citation

Editorial Summary

Words on the brink

As a language evolves, grammatical rules emerge and exceptions die out. Lieberman et al. have calculated the rate at which a language grows more regular, based on 1,200 years of English usage. Of 177 irregular verbs, 79 became regular in the last millennium. And the trend follows a simple rule: a verb's half-life scales as the square root of its frequency. Irregular verbs that are 100 times as rare regularize 10 times faster. The emergence of a rule (such as adding –ed for the past tense) spells death for exceptional forms. The cover graphic makes the point: verb size corresponds to usage frequency, so large verbs stay at the top, and small verbs fall to the bottom. 'Wed', the next irregular verb to go, is on the brink. In a separate study, Pagel et al. looked at changing word meanings. Across the Indo-European languages, words like 'tail' or 'bird' evolve rapidly and are expressed by many unrelated words. Others, like 'two', are expressed by closely related word forms across the whole language family. Data from over 80 modern languages show that the more a word is used, the less it changes.

Associated content