How Arbitrary is Language?

Overview

Journal Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci

Specialty Biology

Date 2014 Aug 6

PMID 25092667

Citations 48

Authors

Padraic Monaghan

Richard C Shillcock

Morten H Christiansen

Simon Kirby

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

It is a long established convention that the relationship between sounds and meanings of words is essentially arbitrary--typically the sound of a word gives no hint of its meaning. However, there are numerous reported instances of systematic sound-meaning mappings in language, and this systematicity has been claimed to be important for early language development. In a large-scale corpus analysis of English, we show that sound-meaning mappings are more systematic than would be expected by chance. Furthermore, this systematicity is more pronounced for words involved in the early stages of language acquisition and reduces in later vocabulary development. We propose that the vocabulary is structured to enable systematicity in early language learning to promote language acquisition, while also incorporating arbitrariness for later language in order to facilitate communicative expressivity and efficiency.

Citing Articles

Human-machine interactions with clinical phrase prediction system, aligning with Zipf's least effort principle?.

Zaghir J, Bjelogrlic M, Goldman J, Ehrsam J, Gaudet-Blavignac C, Lovis C PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0316177.

PMID: 39739748 PMC: 11687647. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316177.

Statistical Relationships Between Phonological Form, Emotional Valence and Arousal of Spanish Words.

de Zubicaray G, Hinojosa J J Cogn. 2024; 7(1):42.

PMID: 38737820 PMC: 11086587. DOI: 10.5334/joc.366.

High-level language brain regions process sublexical regularities.

Regev T, Kim H, Chen X, Affourtit J, Schipper A, Bergen L Cereb Cortex. 2024; 34(3).

PMID: 38494886 PMC: 11486690. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhae077.

Embodied Processing at Six Linguistic Granularity Levels: A Consensus Paper.

Korner A, Castillo M, Drijvers L, Fischer M, Gunther F, Marelli M J Cogn. 2023; 6(1):60.

PMID: 37841668 PMC: 10573585. DOI: 10.5334/joc.231.

The (Co)Evolution of Language and Music Under Human Self-Domestication.

Benitez-Burraco A, Nikolsky A Hum Nat. 2023; 34(2):229-275.

PMID: 37097428 PMC: 10354115. DOI: 10.1007/s12110-023-09447-1.

References

Diamond M, Petersen R, Harris J . Learning through maps: functional significance of topographic organization in primary sensory cortex. J Neurobiol. 1999; 41(1):64-8. View

Piantadosi S, Tily H, Gibson E . The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition. 2011; 122(3):280-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004. View

Farmer T, Christiansen M, Monaghan P . Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(32):12203-8. PMC: 1567719. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0602173103. View

Walsh V . A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(11):483-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002. View

Jaeger T . Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cogn Psychol. 2010; 61(1):23-62. PMC: 2896231. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002. View

Vigliocco G, Vinson D, Lewis W, Garrett M . Representing the meanings of object and action words: the featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cogn Psychol. 2004; 48(4):422-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001. View

Spector F, Maurer D . Synesthesia: a new approach to understanding the development of perception. Dev Psychol. 2009; 45(1):175-89. DOI: 10.1037/a0014171. View

Huettig F, Quinlan P, McDonald S, Altmann G . Models of high-dimensional semantic space predict language-mediated eye movements in the visual world. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005; 121(1):65-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.002. View

Steyvers M, Tenenbaum J . The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cogn Sci. 2011; 29(1):41-78. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3. View

10.

HOCKETT C . The origin of speech. Sci Am. 1960; 203:89-96. View

11.

Evans N, Levinson S . The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci. 2009; 32(5):429-48. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X. View

12.

Kaas J . Topographic maps are fundamental to sensory processing. Brain Res Bull. 1997; 44(2):107-12. DOI: 10.1016/s0361-9230(97)00094-4. View

13.

Nygaard L, Herold D, Namy L . The semantics of prosody: acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cogn Sci. 2011; 33(1):127-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01007.x. View

14.

Kuperman V, Stadthagen-Gonzalez H, Brysbaert M . Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behav Res Methods. 2012; 44(4):978-90. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4. View

15.

Monaghan P, Mattock K, Walker P . The role of sound symbolism in language learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012; 38(5):1152-64. DOI: 10.1037/a0027747. View

16.

Monaghan P, Christiansen M, Fitneva S . The arbitrariness of the sign: learning advantages from the structure of the vocabulary. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011; 140(3):325-47. DOI: 10.1037/a0022924. View

17.

Maurer D, Pathman T, Mondloch C . The shape of boubas: sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Dev Sci. 2006; 9(3):316-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00495.x. View

18.

Spence C . Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 73(4):971-95. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7. View

19.

Perniss P, Thompson R, Vigliocco G . Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front Psychol. 2011; 1:227. PMC: 3153832. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227. View

20.

Kovic V, Plunkett K, Westermann G . The shape of words in the brain. Cognition. 2009; 114(1):19-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.016. View