1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 18, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper outlines a first attempt to model the special constraints that arise in language processing in conversation, and to explore the implications such functional considerations may have on language typology and language change. In particular, we focus on processing pressures imposed by conversational turn-taking and their consequences for the cultural evolution of the structural properties of language. We present an agent-based model of cultural evolution where agents take turns at talk in conversation. When the start of planning for the next turn is constrained by the position of the verb, the stable distribution of dominant word orders across languages evolves to match the actual distribution reasonably well. We suggest that the interface of cognition and interaction should be a more central part of the story of language evolution.

© No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
2017-12-08
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altmann, G. T. M.
    (1999) Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 124–45. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2640
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2640 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2004) Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The ‘blank screen paradigm’. Cognition, 93, 79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, P.
    (2001) Word order in a free word order language: the case of Jiwarli. In J. Simpson , D. Nash , M. Laughren , P. Austin , & B. Alpher (Eds.), Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages (pp.205–323). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barthel, M. , Sauppe, S. , Levinson, S. C. , & Meyer, A. S.
    (2016) The timing of utterance planning in task-oriented dialogue: Evidence from a novel list-completion paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1858. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01858
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01858 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentz, C. , & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2010) Linguistic adaptation at work? The change of word order and case system from Latin to the Romance languages. In A. Smith , M. Schouwstra , B. de Boer , & K. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on the evolution of language (pp.26–33). London: World Scientific.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowern, C.
    (2012) A grammar of Bardi. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110278187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278187 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blasi, D. E. , Wichmann, S. , Hammarström, H. , Stadler, P. F. , & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2016) Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39): 10818–23. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605782113
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bögels, S. , Kendrick, K. H. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Never Say No… How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PloS One, 10(12), e0145474. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145474
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145474 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bögels, S. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2016) The brain behind the response: Insights into turn-taking in conversation from neuroimaging. Research on Language and Social Interaction. Advance online publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bögels, S. , Magyari, L. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 12881. doi: 10.1038/srep12881
     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12881 [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen, P. , Fusaroli, R. , & Tylén, K.
    (2016) Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition, 146, 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Christiansen, M. H. , & Chater, N.
    (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489–509. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X08004998
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004998 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dingemanse, M. , Roberts, S. G. , Baranova, J. , Blythe, J. , Drew, P. , Floyd, S. , Gisladottir, R. S. , Kendrick, K. H. , Levinson, S. C. , Manrique, E. , Rossi, G. , & Enfield, N. J.
    (2015) Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PloS One, 10(9), e0136100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136100
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100 [Google Scholar]
  15. Donders, F. C.
    (1868) La vitesse des actes psychiques. Archives Néerlandaise, 3, 269–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dryer, M. S.
    (2013a) Order of subject, object and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: wals.info/chapter/81, Accessed on2017-01-11.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2013b) Position of polar question particles. In Matthew S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: wals.info/chapter/92, Accessed on2017-01-13.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunn, M. , Greenhill, S. J. , Levinson, S. C. , & Gray, R. D.
    (2011) Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473(7345), 79–82. doi: 10.1038/nature09923
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923 [Google Scholar]
  19. Duranti, A.
    (1981) The Samoan fono: A sociolinguistic study (No. 80). Pacific Linguistics Series B, 80. Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Enfield, N. J.
    (2008) Language as shaped by social interaction. Behavioral and brain sciences, 31(5), 519–520. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X08005104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005104 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fedzechkina, M. , Jaeger, T. F. , & Newport, E. L.
    (2012) Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17897–17902. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215776109
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215776109 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferrer-i Cancho, R.
    (2008) Some word order biases from limited brain resources: A mathematical approach. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(3), 393–414. doi: 10.1142/S0219525908001702
     https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525908001702 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferrer-i-Cancho, R.
    (2014) Why might SOV be initially preferred and then lost or recovered? A theoretical framework. In E. A. Cartmill , S. Roberts , H. Lyn , & H. Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of language – Proceedings of the 10th International Conference (EVOLANG10), Evolution of Language Conference (Evolang 2014) (pp.66–73). Vienna, Austria, April 14–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2015) The placement of the head that minimizes online memory. A complex systems approach. Language Dynamics and Change, 5(1), 114–137. doi: 10.1163/22105832‑00501007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00501007 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2016) Kauffman's adjacent possible in word order evolution. In S. G. Roberts , C. Cuskley , L. McCrohon , L. Barceló-Coblijn , O. Fehér , & T. Verhoef (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11) . Available online: evolang.org/neworleans/papers/83.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Garrod, S. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (2009) Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 292–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2009.01020.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Gell-Mann, M. , & Ruhlen, M.
    (2011) The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(42), 17290–17295. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113716108
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibson, E. , Piantadosi, S. T. , Brink, K. , Bergen, L. , Lim, E. , & Saxe, R.
    (2013) A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1079–1088. doi: 10.1177/0956797612463705
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463705 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gisladottir, R. S. , Chwilla, D. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120068
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120068 [Google Scholar]
  30. Givón, T.
    (1983a) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1983b) Topic continuity in discourse: An Introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourseTopic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldin-Meadow, S. , So, W. C. , Özyürek, A. , & Mylander, C.
    (2008) The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events non- verbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9163–9168. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710060105
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hale, K.
    (1992) Basic word order in two “free word order” languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp.63–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.22.03hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22.03hal [Google Scholar]
  34. Haspelmath, M. , Dryer, M. S. , Gil, D. , & Comrie, B.
    (2008) World Atlas of Language Structures. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online: wals.info. Accessed on2013-04-18.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hawkins, J.
    (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hick, W. E.
    (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26. doi: 10.1080/17470215208416600
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215208416600 [Google Scholar]
  38. Horn, L.
    (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp.11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Reprinted in Kasher (ed., 1998), vol. IV: 389–418.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Indefrey, P.
    (2011) The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: A critical update. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(255), 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2010) Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jaeger, T. F. , & Levy, R. P.
    (2006) Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In P. B. Schölkopf , J. C. Platt , & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (pp.849–856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamide, Y.
    (2008) Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 647–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00072.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Kamide, Y. , Altmann, G. T. , & Haywood, S. L.
    (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–159. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00023‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kendrick, K. H.
    (2012) Particles at the transition space. Talk presented at the Interactional Foundations of Language Meeting , Kreuth, Germany, 2012-11-01–2012-11-02.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2015) The intersection of turn-taking and repair: The timing of other-initiations of repair in conversation. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 250. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kendrick, K. H. , & Torreira, F.
    (2015) The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kirby, S. , Griffiths, T. , & Smith, K.
    (2014) Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current opinion in neurobiology, 28, 108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  48. Knoeferle, P. , Crocker, M. W. , Scheepers, C. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (2005) The influence of the immediate visual context on in cremental thematic role assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95, 95–127. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Krupa, V.
    (1982) Syntactic typology and linearization. Language, 58(3), 639–645. doi: 10.2307/413851
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413851 [Google Scholar]
  50. Langus, A. , & Nespor, M.
    (2010) Cognitive systems struggling for word order. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 291–318. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Levelt, W. J. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A. S.
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  52. Levinson, S.
    (2006) On the human interaction engine. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and human interaction (pp.39–69). Oxford: Berg.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2016) Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lupyan, G. , & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2002) Case, word order, and language learnability: Insights from connectionist modeling. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp.596–601). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Maurits, L. , Perfors, A. , & Navarro, D.
    (2010) Why are some word orders more common than others? A uniform information density account. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 23, 1585–1593.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mithun, M.
    (1992) Is basic word order universal?In D. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp.15–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.22.02mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22.02mit [Google Scholar]
  58. Nowak, I. , & Baggio, G.
    (2016) The emergence of word order and morphology in compositional languages via multigenerational signaling games. Journal of Language Evolution, 1(2), 137–150. doi: 10.1093/jole/lzw007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw007 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ochs, E.
    (1982) Ergativity and word order in Samoan child language. Language, 58(3), 646–671. doi: 10.2307/413852
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413852 [Google Scholar]
  60. Ochs, E. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1996) Interaction and grammar, Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  61. Piantadosi, S. T. , Tily, H. , & Gibson, E.
    (2011) Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3526–3529. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012551108
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108 [Google Scholar]
  62. Reali, F. , & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2009) Sequential learning and the interaction between biological and linguistic adaptation in language evolution. Interaction Studies, 10, 5–30. doi: 10.1075/is.10.1.02rea
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.10.1.02rea [Google Scholar]
  63. Roberts, F. , Margutti, P. , & Takano, S.
    (2011) Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Processes, 48(5), 331–354. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002 [Google Scholar]
  64. Roberts, S. G. , Torreira, F. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) The effects of processing and sequence organisation on the timing of turn taking: A corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 509. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509 [Google Scholar]
  65. Roberts, S. , & Winters, J.
    (2013) Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PloS One, 8(8), e70902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070902
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070902 [Google Scholar]
  66. de Ruiter, J. P. , Mitterer, H. , & Enfield, N. J.
    (2006) Projecting the end of a speaker's turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0130
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0130 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 40(4), 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sauppe, S.
    (2016) Verbal semantics drives early anticipatory eye movements during the comprehension of verb-initial sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 95. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00095
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00095 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1989) Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In M. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp.139–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Schegloff, E. A. , Jefferson, G. , & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schouwstra, M. , & de Swart, H.
    (2014) The semantic origins of word order. Cognition, 131(3), 431–436. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  72. Steels, L. , & Belpaeme, T.
    (2005) Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: a case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 469–489. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000087
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000087 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stivers, T. , Enfield, N. J. , Brown, P. , Englert, C. , Hayashi, M. , Heinemann, T. , Hoymann, G. , Rossano, F. , De Ruiter, J. P. , Yoon, K.-E. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  74. Swartz, S.
    (1987) Pragmatic structure and word order in Warlpiri. Papers in Australian linguistics, 17, 151–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Tamariz, Mónica , et al
    (2017) “The Interactive Origin of Iconicity.” Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12497
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12497 [Google Scholar]
  76. Tanaka, H.
    (2000) Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2005) Grammar and the “timing” of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society, 34(3), 389–430. doi: 10.1017/S0047404505050141
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050141 [Google Scholar]
  78. Thompson, S. A.
    (1998) A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In A. Siewierska & J. J. Song (Eds.), Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake (pp.307–341). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.38.17tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.38.17tho [Google Scholar]
  79. Tomlin, R. S.
    (1986) Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Valin, R. D. , & LaPolla, R. J.
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  81. Verhoef, T. , Roberts, S. G. & Dingemanse, M.
    (2015) Emergence of systematic iconicity: transmission, interaction and analogy. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , 2481–2486. Cognitive Science Society. https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2015/papers/0426/paper0426.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Zipf, G. K.
    (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Dryer, M. S.
    (2013a) Order of Subject, Object and Verb. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. (2013b) Prefixing vs. Suffixing in Inflectional Morphology.Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Thompson, S. A.
    (1998) A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 309–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Gell-Mann, M. . and Ruhlen, M.
    (2011) The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(42):17290–17295.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Scott-Phillips, T. C. and Kirby, S.
    (2010) Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(9): 411–417.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
Loading
Conversation, cognition and cultural evolution
Interaction Studies 18, 402 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cultural evolution; pragmatics; turn taking; typology; word order

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error