Results of Experiment 1.
The results of our first experiment, involv-ing 4 separate diffusion chains of 10 participants each, are shown inFig. 2. Each of these chains was initialized with a different randomlanguage. There is a clear and statistically significant decrease intransmission error between the initial and final generations (meandecrease0.748,SD
0.002).Thisdecreaseconfirms the first of our predictions: the language is adapting tobecome increasingly transmissible from generation to generation.Indeed, toward the end of some chains the language is transmittedperfectly: these participants produced exactly the same strings forevery meaning as their predecessor, although they had not beenexposed to the strings associated with half of those meanings.Howisthisadaptationpossible?Isanystructuralevolutionofthelanguage taking place as in the second of our 2 predictions? AsTable 1 shows, the number of distinct strings in each languagedecreases rapidly. The initial random languages are completelyunambiguous: every meaning is expressed by a distinct signal. Thetransmission process cumulatively introduces ambiguity as singlestrings are re-used to express more and more meanings. In other words, the languages gradually introduce underspecification of meanings. Clearly, the reduction in the number of strings mustmake a language easier for participants to learn, but the reductionalone cannot account for the results we see. For example, thereduction does not explain how, in some chains, participants areable to produce the correct signal for every meaning, includingmeanings drawn from the UNSEEN set.The answer to this puzzle lies in the structure of the languages.Theinitialrandomlanguageis,bydefinition,unstructured:nothingin the set of signals gives any systematic clue to the meanings beingconveyed. The only way to learn this language is by rote. Equally,if a language is randomly underspecified, then rote learning is theonly way it can be acquired. For example, if the same signal is usedfor a black spiraling triangle and a red bouncing square, then alearnermustseethissignalusedforbothofthesemeaningstolearnit.BecausewedeliberatelyholditemsbackfromtheSEENset,rotelearning for all meanings is impossible. For learners to be able togeneralize to unseen meanings successfully, there must be system-atic underspecification.We can observe exactly this kind of structure evolving byexaminingalanguageasitdevelopsintheexperiment.Forexample,by generation 4 in 1 of the diffusion chains, the string
is usedexclusively for all pictures with an object moving horizontally. Thedistributionoftheotherstringsinthelanguageismoreidiosyncraticand unpredictable at this stage. By generation 6,
is used to referto most spiraling pictures, but there are exceptions for triangles andsquares. Blue spiraling triangles or squares are referred to as
,and red spiraling triangles or squares are
. In the followinggeneration,theseexceptionalcasesarereducedtothebluespiralingtriangleandtheredspiralingsquare.Bygeneration8(showninFig.3), and also for generations 9 and 10, the language has settled ona simple system of regularities whereby everything that moveshorizontally is
, all spiraling objects are
, and bouncingobjects are divided according to shape.Itispreciselybecausethelanguagecanbedescribedbyusingthissimple set of generalizations that participants are able to labelcorrectly pictures that they have never previously seen. This gen-eralization directly ensures the stable cultural transmission of thelanguage from generation to generation, even though each learnerof the language is exposed to incomplete training data.
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 5 1 0
S t r u c t u r e
2 4 6 8 10
0 . 0 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0
E r r o r
givesthe95%conﬁdenceintervalsothatanyresultabovethislinedemonstratesthatthereisanonrandomalignment of signals and meanings. In other words, structure in the set of signals reﬂects structure in the set of meanings. In 2 cases, this measure is not deﬁned andtherefore is not plotted (see
). The language discussed in the paper is circled.
Table 1. Number of distinct words by generation in theﬁrst experiment
Generation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chain 1 27 17 9 6 5 4 4 2 2 2 2
Chain 2 27 17 15 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4
Chain 3 27 24 8 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 5
Chain 4 27 23 9 10 9 11 7 5 5 4 4
Symbols correspond to those in Fig. 2.
tuge tuge tugetuge tuge tugetuge tuge tugetupim tupim tupimminiku miniku minikutupin tupin tupinpoi poi poipoi poi poipoi poi poi
An example evolved language in the ﬁrst experiment. This languageexhibitssystematicunderspeciﬁcation,enablinglearnerstoreproducethewholelanguage from a fragment.
August 5, 2008
E V O L U T I O N P S Y C H O L O G Y