Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31949223›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Evolutionary Dynamics Do Not Motivate a Single-Mutant Theory of Human Language.

Bart de Boer, Bill Thompson, Andrea Ravignani, Cedric Boeckx

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What made us "hunter-gatherers of words".Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. A Connectomic Hypothesis for the Hominization of the Brain.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Bart de BoerAI-lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussel, Belgium. bart@ai.vub.ac.be.
Bill ThompsonLanguage and Cognition Department, Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Wundtlaan 1, 6525, XD, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-3531
Andrea RavignaniAI-lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussel, Belgium.
Cedric BoeckxICREA, Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8882-9718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most controversial hypotheses in cognitive science is the Chomskyan evolutionary conjecture that language arose instantaneously in humans through a single mutation. Here we analyze the evolutionary dynamics implied by this hypothesis, which has never been formalized before. The hypothesis supposes the emergence and fixation of a single mutant (capable of the syntactic operation Merge) during a narrow historical window as a result of frequency-independent selection under a huge fitness advantage in a population of an effective size no larger than ~15 000 individuals. We examine this proposal by combining diffusion analysis and extreme value theory to derive a probabilistic formulation of its dynamics. We find that although a macro-mutation is much more likely to go to fixation if it occurs, it is much more unlikely a priori than multiple mutations with smaller fitness effects. The most likely scenario is therefore one where a medium number of mutations with medium fitness effects accumulate. This precise analysis of the probability of mutations occurring and going to fixation has not been done previously in the context of the evolution of language. Our results cast doubt on any suggestion that evolutionary reasoning provides an independent rationale for a single-mutant theory of language.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionLanguageModels, BiologicalMutationHumansProbability

Identifiers

PMID31949223
PMCPMC6965110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.