Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25192934›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics.

Luke Maurits, Thomas L Griffiths

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Crosslinguistic word order variation reflects evolutionary pressures of dependency and information locality.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luke MauritsDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94704 luke@maurits.id.au.
Thomas L GriffithsDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94704.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ordering of subject, verb, and object is one of the fundamental components of the syntax of natural languages. The distribution of basic word orders across the world's languages is highly nonuniform, with the majority of languages being either subject-object-verb (SOV) or subject-verb-object (SVO). Explaining this fact using psychological accounts of language acquisition or processing requires understanding how the present distribution has resulted from ancestral distributions and the rates of change between orders. We show that Bayesian phylogenetics can provide quantitative answers to three important questions: how word orders are likely to change over time, which word orders were dominant historically, and whether strong inferences about the origins of syntax can be drawn from modern languages. We find that SOV to SVO change is more common than the reverse and VSO to SVO change is more common than VSO to SOV, and that if the seven language families we consider share a common ancestor then that common ancestor likely had SOV word order, but also that there are limits on how confidently we can make inferences about ancestral word order based on modern-day observations. These results shed new light on old questions from historical linguistics and provide clear targets for psychological explanations of word-order distributions.

Indexed as

LinguisticsPhylogenyBayes TheoremHumansLanguageModels, TheoreticalMutationProbabilitycomputational historical linguisticslanguage evolutionpsycholinguistics

Identifiers

PMID25192934
PMCPMC4169967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.