Search arXiv⌕ Search
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

BibTeXRIS

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

MultiViewDx: Evidence-Linked Multi-View Clinical Diagnosis

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform well on existing medical visual question answering (MedVQA) benchmarks, but their training data often does not match clinical diagnosis. Most supervision is organized around isolated images or short QA pairs, leaving two structures weakly specified: how evidence leads to a decision, and how views, series, modalities, and patient context from the same case are linked. We introduce MultiViewDx, a partly physician-validated multimodal instruction dataset for evidence-linked multi-view medical imaging diagnosis. MultiViewDx uses the clinical case as the supervision unit. It links imaging studies with patient context, normalizes heterogeneous reports into an evidence-linked workflow (evidence -> findings -> differential discussion -> diagnosis), and uses a unified image-text retriever to constrain instruction synthesis to source-supported evidence. It covers X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and other clinical visual sources. We fine-tune MultiViewDx-8B-AN and evaluate it on both existing MedVQA benchmarks and real-world case-based diagnostic reasoning. Across four MedVQA benchmarks, it achieves the best average accuracy among compared systems (79.0%), outperforming HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B (66.7%) and Claude3-Opus (55.7%). Beyond MedVQA, on JAMA Clinical Challenge cases, it receives the strongest overall rating under a physician-designed rubric for key clinical points, diagnostic inference, and evidence grounding. Controlled ablations and clinician evaluation show that both case-level multi-view organization and evidence-linked reasoning targets contribute to the gain.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Interactive In-Meeting Speaker Correction with Human Feedback

Most automatic speech processing systems operate in ``open loop'' mode without user feedback about who said what, yet human-in-the-loop workflows can potentially enable higher accuracy. We propose an LLM-assisted in-meeting speaker correction system that lets users fix speaker attribution errors through brief corrective feedback. After performing streaming ASR and diarization, the system presents concise LLM-generated summaries to help users identify important speaker errors, and it incorporates user feedback by updating the speaker-attributed transcript and adding online speaker enrollments. To make this workflow effective despite errors in speech processing, LLM analysis, and user feedback, we developed several mechanisms to identify the intended correction more precisely. Further, we built an LLM-driven user feedback simulation to evaluate the workflow reprodubilty and at scale. Applied to the AMI headset test set, our system substantially reduces the DER from a streaming baseline (Google ASR + ECAPA) by 31.99% and speaker substitution error by 52.68%. Results of a pilot usability study suggest several avenues to improve the user experience.

cs.CL↗