Evolution, Efficiency, & Entropy

Phillip Potamites
*CHILDES(‘08):
March 11, 2010
Fd_nȱ <q`m\b` Poo`m\i^` G`iboc ]t Fd_nȱ <b` Fd_nȱ <q`m\b` Qj^\]pg\mt ]t Fd_nȱ <b`
11 18000
10 ♦ 16000 ♦
♦ 14000
9
♦♦♦ ♦ 12000
8 ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 10000
7 ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦ 8000
♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
6 ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 6000
♦ ♦
♦
5 ♦♦
♦ ♦ 4000 ♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦
4 ♦ ♦♦ ♦ 2000 ♦
♦ ♦♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦♦ ♦
3 0 ♦ ♦
♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
\b` #hjiocn$ \b` #hjiocn$
<_pgonȱ <q`m\b` Poo`m\i^` G`iboc ]t Fd_nȱ <b` <_pgonȱ <q`m\b` Qj^\]pg\mt ]t Fd_nȱ <b`
10.5 25000
10 ♦
9.5 20000 ♦
9
8.5 ♦ ♦ 15000
♦
8 ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
7.5 ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦
♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ 10000 ♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
7 ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦
6.5 ♦
♦ ♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦♦ ♦♦
♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦♦ 5000 ♦♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦♦
6 ♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦♦
♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦
5.5 ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦ ♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦
0 ♦♦♦♦ ♦
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
\b` #hjiocn$ \b` #hjiocn$

O\]g` ,5 G`iboc Di^m`\n`n) O\]g` -5 Qj^\]pg\mt ?`^m`\n`n rdoc oc` ?\o\)

1
 Fd_nȱ <q`m\b` Otk`n*Ojf`in ]t Fd_nȱ <b` <q`m\b` Fd_nȱ k#r-|r,$ ]t Fd_nȱ <b`
0.7 0.8 ♦
♦
0.6
♦♦ ♦ 0.7 ♦
♦
♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
0.5 ♦♦
♦ 0.6
♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦
0.4 ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
0.5 ♦ ♦♦
♦♦♦♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦♦
♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦
0.3 ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ 0.4 ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
♦
♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
0.2 ♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦
♦♦
♦ 0.3 ♦
♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦
♦♦♦♦
♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦♦♦
0.1
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦ ♦ 0.2
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦♦
♦♦
♦♦ ♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦
0 ♦ 0.1
♦
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
\b` #hjiocn$ \b` #hjiocn$
<_pgonȱ <q`m\b` Otk`n*Ojf`in ]t Fd_nȱ <b` <q`m\b` <_pgonȱ k#r-|r,$ ]t Fd_nȱ <b`
0.7 ♦ 0.9
0.6 0.8 ♦
♦ 0.7 ♦
0.5 ♦ ♦
♦♦ 0.6 ♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦
0.4 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦ 0.5 ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ 0.4 ♦♦♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
0.3
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦♦♦ 0.3 ♦♦
♦ ♦ ♦
0.2 ♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦♦♦
♦ ♦ 0.2
♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
0.1 ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
♦♦ ♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦ ♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦
♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦
♦♦ 0.1
♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦ ♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦
0 ♦ ♦ 0 ♦ ♦
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
\b` #hjiocn$ \b` #hjiocn$

O\]g` .5 Qj^\]pg\mt Di^m`\n`n) O\]g` /5 =dbm\h Kmj]\]dgdod`n ?`^m`\n` \n ?dq`mndot Di^m`\n`n)

• Magnitude distinguishes adults and children, but development, for 3 out 4 of the variables, does not.
• ∴Development is most distinctive, in contextual (un)predictability.
• Development maximizes entropy.

Levy&Jeager(’07):
1
log p(u) = log p(w1 1 ) + log p(w21|w1 ) + ... + log p(wn |w11...wn−1 )

2
 Levy&Jeager, 2007, sec. 5.4:
“We tested this by building a syntactic-reduction model containing two predictability covariates: one using NGRAM features alone,
and one using all other (i.e., structural, or all-but-NGRAM) feature types listed in Section 5.2. We can then test whether the parameter
weight in the reduction model for each predictability measure differs significantly from zero. It turns out that both predictability measures
matter: all-but-NGRAM predictability is highly significant (χ2 (1) = 23.55, p < 0.0001), but NGRAM predictability is also significant
(χ2 (1) = 5.28, p < 0.025). While NGRAM and all-but-NGRAM probabilities are strongly correlated (r2 = 0.70), they evidently exhibit
enough differences to contribute non-redundant information in the reduction model. We interpret this as evidence that speakers may be
using both surface and structural cues for phrasal predictability estimation in utterance structuring.”

2 contraction
The following tables, of the 10 most redundant categories, show that auxiliaries, tagged “md”, in the PTB, take either first or second
place for redundancy (while ‘pdt’ is a tag specific to preceding determiners, such as “all” in “all the tips” or “such” in “such a plan”).
“md” is headed by “vp” 9708 times out of 9789 and followed by “vb” 7809 times out of 9793 times.

SEQ SYN
POS count rH POS count rH
pdt 369 0.07223621 md 9789 0.01453077
md 9793 0.17961992 wdt 3921 0.03057409
rbs 450 0.28186068 to 13559 0.05735850
ex 863 0.37972883 wp@usd@ 149 0.06083448
prp@usd@ 8404 0.39993898 wp 2302 0.06472455
wp@usd@ 168 0.41586265 wrb 2093 0.07036479
to 22339 0.43569998 whnp 434 0.10210527
dt 81756 0.45648856 prn 250 0.14485216
jj 61158 0.48318889 ex 863 0.18528823
pos 8700 0.48935646 pos 8649 0.21643449

3
 A the spreading pattern
oc` nkm`\_dib k\oo`mi

/
0
4
B additional comparisons

C boundaries

5
D MEP: seeming violations? what really matters?

Figure 1: Typical Bénard cells

Figure 2: Rate of heat transport

6
E Zipf