Word length predicts word order: "Min-max"-ing drives language evolution

Hiram Ring

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2505.13913

Word length predicts word order: "Min-max"-ing drives language evolution

Hiram Ring

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A fundamental concern in linguistics has been to understand how languages change, such as in relation to word order. Since the order of words in a sentence (i.e. the relative placement of Subject, Object, and Verb) is readily identifiable in most languages, this has been a productive field of study for decades (see Greenberg 1963; Dryer 2007; Hawkins 2014). However, a language's word order can change over time, with competing explanations for such changes (Carnie and Guilfoyle 2000; Crisma and Longobardi 2009; Martins and Cardoso 2018; Dunn et al. 2011; Jager and Wahle 2021). This paper proposes a general universal explanation for word order change based on a theory of communicative interaction (the Min-Max theory of language behavior) in which agents seek to minimize effort while maximizing information. Such an account unifies opposing findings from language processing (Piantadosi et al. 2011; Wasow 2022; Levy 2008) that make different predictions about how word order should be realized crosslinguistically. The marriage of both "efficiency" and "surprisal" approaches under the Min-Max theory is justified with evidence from a massive dataset of 1,942 language corpora tagged for parts of speech (Ring 2025), in which average lengths of particular word classes correlates with word order, allowing for prediction of basic word order from diverse corpora. The general universal pressure of word class length in corpora is shown to give a stronger explanation for word order realization than either genealogical or areal factors, highlighting the importance of language corpora for investigating such questions.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Hiram Ring. 2026-03-10. Word length predicts word order: "Min-max"-ing drives language evolution. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13913

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗