Transcript Slide 1

Vowel Systems
Practical Example
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
1
Why speech?
• Cross-linguistic data available

– On universals
– On acquisition
– On language change
• This data is relatively
uncontroversial
– As opposed to e.g. syntax



Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
2
Speech is easy to model
• It is a physical signal
• We can use existing
techniques
– Speech synthesis techniques
– Speech processing techniques
– Even neural processing models
• Results are directly comparable to the real
thing
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
3
The aim of the study
• Explain universals of vowel systems
– Why are do certain (combinations of) vowels occur
more often than others
(acoustic distinctiveness)
– How does the optimisation take place?
• Hypothesis
– Self-organisation in a population under constraints
of production, perception, learning causes optimal
systems to emerge
• Model
– Agent-based model
– Imitation games
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
4
Computational considerations
• Simplification 1
– Agents communicate formants, not complete signals
– Greatly reduces the number of computations
– Perception, production already in terms of formants
• Simplification 2
– No meaning (problem: phonemes are defined in
terms of meaning)
– Imitation is used instead of distinguishing meaning
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
5
Architecture
For vowels:
• Realistic production
articulatory synthesiser
(Maeda, Valleé)
• Realistic perception
Formant weighting
(Mantakas, Schwarz,
Boë)
Associative
Memory
Perception
Production
• Learning model
Prototype based
associative memory
Sounds
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
6
The interactions
• Imitation with categorical perception
– Humans hear speech signals as the nearest
phoneme in their language (?)
• Correctness of imitation depends not only on
the signals used, but also on the agents’
repertoires
Initiator
Imitator
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
7
Imitation failure
Initiator
Imitator
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
8
Distributed probabilistic optimization
•
•
•
•
Pick an agent from the population
Pick a signal from this agent
Modify the signal randomly
Play imitation games with all other agents in
the population
• If success of modification is higher than
success of original vowel, keep the change,
otherwise revert.
• Disadvantage:
– Number of signals per agent is fixed beforehand
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
9
Reactions to imitation game
F2
Shift Closer
F1
Throw away
Vowel
Add Vowel
Merge
Modelling the evolution of language for modellers and non-modellers
EvoLang 2004
10
Random Energy Distribution
Random Success Distribution
250
Measures
Optimal Energy Distribution
100
700
90
600
80
500
150
100
Frequency
70
Frequency
Frequency
200
60
50
40
30
50
• Imitative success
100
10
0.
44
0.
46
0.
48
0.
50
0.
51
0.
53
0.
55
0.
57
0.
58
0.
60
0.
62
0
Energy
1.
48
1.
55
1.
63
1.
70
1.
77
1.
84
1.
92
1.
99
2.
06
2.
13
2.
21
0
7.
9
17 1
.8
40 0
.0
90 9
.
20 28
3.
4 32
1. 5 7.
03 8 8
2. E+
32 03
5. E+
23 03
1. E+
18 03
2. E+
65 04
E+
04
300
200
20
0
400
Success
Energy
• Energy of vowel systems (Liljencrants &
Lindblom)
Success Distribution
Size Distribution
Frequency
• Size
300
250
200
150
100
50
• Preservation
0.
87
0.
88
0.
89
0.
91
0.
92
0.
93
0.
94
0.
96
0.
97
0.
98
1.
00
0
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2.
00
2.
29
2.
58
2.
87
3.
16
3.
45
3.
74
4.
03
4.
32
4.
61
4.
90
Frequency
350
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Frequency
400
Success
0.
11
0.
39
0.
67
0.
96
1.
24
1.
52
1.
80
2.
09
2.
37
2.
65
2.
93
450
Energy Distribution
Size
Energy
– Success of imitation between agents from
populations a number of generations apart
– Only in systems with changing populations
88 %
1



2
5
8










3
4


5
6





2
3
6
7
4%
1


F1 (Bark)
4
F1 (Bark)
3
F1 (Bark)
• Realism
2
8%
1




8
13
12
11
F2' (Bark)
10





7
8
Modelling the evolution of language
non-modellers
16 15 for
14 modellers
13 12 11 10 and
9
8
16 15 14
F2' (Bark)
EvoLang 2004


5
6



7
4
9
8
16
15
14
13
12
11
F2' (Bark)
119
10
8