Cognitive Science, Volume 46, Issue 6, June 2022.

Piantadosi, Tily, and Gibson analyzed a large‐scale web‐scraping corpus (the Google 1T dataset) and reported that word length is independently predicted from average information content (surprisal) calculated by a 2‐ to 4‐gram model (hereafter, longer‐span surprisal) across 11 Indo‐European languages, namely, Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Swedish. However, a recent article by Meylan and Griffiths suggested the importance of preprocessing for studies with large‐scale corpora and reanalyzed the same databases. After their preprocessing, the results (...) in Piantadosi et al. were not replicated in Czech, Romanian, and Swedish. Additionally, a German‐specific study by Koplenig, Kupietz, and Wolfer showed that the strict analysis did not replicate the result in Piantadosi et al. for that language with the preprocessing suggested by Meylan and Griffiths in a large‐scale but less noisy database. These three studies provide evidence from 11 Indo‐European languages and one Afro‐Asiatic language, Hebrew, as relevant in this debate. However, we do not have evidence from other linguistic groups. This study provides evidence about Japanese based on a strict preprocessing of Google's web‐scraping database. The results show that Japanese word length can be predicted independently by 2‐ to 4‐gram surprisal. (shrink)

A central concern of the cognitive science of language since its origins has been the concept of the linguistic system. Recent approaches to the system concept in language point to the exceedingly complex relations that hold between many kinds of interdependent systems, but it can be difficult to know how to proceed when “everything is connected.” This paper offers a framework for tackling that challenge by identifying *scale* as a conceptual mooring for the interdisciplinary study of language systems. The paper (...) begins by defining the scale concept—simply, the possibility for a measure to be larger or smaller in different instances of a system, such as a phonemic inventory, a word's frequency value in a corpus, or a speaker population. We review sites of scale difference in and across linguistic subsystems, drawing on findings from linguistic typology, grammatical description, morphosyntactic theory, psycholinguistics, computational corpus work, and social network demography. We consider possible explanations for scaling differences and constraints in language. We then turn to the question of *dependencies between* sites of scale difference in language, reviewing four sample domains of scale dependency: in phonological systems, across levels of grammatical structure (Menzerath's Law), in corpora (Zipf's Law and related issues), and in speaker population size. Finally, we consider the implications of the review, including the utility of a scale framework for generating new questions and inspiring methodological innovations and interdisciplinary collaborations in cognitive-scientific research on language. (shrink)

How do cognitive pressures shape the lexicons of natural languages? Here, we reframe George Kingsley Zipf's proposed “law of abbreviation” within a more general framework that relates it to cognitive pressures that affect speakers and listeners. In this new framework, speakers' drive to reduce effort (Zipf's proposal) is counteracted by the need for low‐frequency words to have word forms that are sufficiently distinctive to allow for accurate recognition by listeners. To support this framework, we replicate and extend recent work using (...) the prevalence of subword phonemic sequences (phonotactic probability) to measure speakers' production effort in place of Zipf's measure of length. Across languages and corpora, phonotactic probability is more strongly correlated with word frequency than word length. We also show this measure of ease of speech production (phonotactic probability) is strongly correlated with a measure of perceptual difficulty that indexes the degree of competition from alternative interpretations in word recognition. This is consistent with the claim that there must be trade‐offs between these two factors, and is inconsistent with a recent proposal that phonotactic probability facilitates both perception and production. To our knowledge, this is the first work to offer an explanation why long, phonotactically improbable word forms remain in the lexicons of natural languages. (shrink)