Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2017 / Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle

Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle

Paper · 2017 · Christopher Ahern and Robin Clark

Summary

The paper asks why emphatic negation loses its force in Jespersen's cycle: a bipartite form such as Middle English ne…not starts out emphatic, spreads, and ends up as ordinary negation. The authors separate the formal cycle (how much material expresses negation) from the functional cycle (how many functionally distinct negative forms exist). They treat the functional cycle as inflation. They model it as a cheap-talk signaling game. Speakers observe a standard of evidence and choose a negative form. Hearers respond with attention, which gives the speaker social status. Interests are mostly shared, but speakers are biased toward getting more status for less information. The authors derive the evolutionarily stable strategies and run the game under replicator dynamics. They then fit the model to time-series data from a Middle English corpus. Emphatic forms get overused, become less informative, and hearers discount them. A model with a speaker bias fits the data far better than one without. This matters because it gives an explicit, causal mechanism for a frequency change that earlier work assumed but never formulated, and its parameters can be estimated and interpreted.

Key points

  • Canonical stages: neg V → neg V (neg) → neg V neg → V neg. The English path runs from Old English ne to Middle English ne…not to Early Modern not. French follows a similar path (ne → ne…pas → pas).
  • The authors argue that the formal cycle depends on how much material expresses negation, not on its position. AAVE eem shows that the added element can be pre-verbal.
  • The framework is evolutionary game theory: costless signals, ESS analysis, and deterministic replicator dynamics fitted to historical corpus frequencies.
  • In model comparison, the full model with speaker bias beats the simplified nested model. The likelihood-ratio statistic is D = 1142.853 (χ² with 1 df, p < .001). The Akaike weight of the simpler model is about as likely as 800 heads in a row.
  • A LOESS curve could reach a lower AIC, but the authors reject it as an explanation because its parameters have no mechanistic meaning.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Emphasis can be modeled as an inflating signal: a marked form carries strong information only while it is rare, and its value drops as frequency rises.
  • I2. Speaker and hearer interests can be represented as aligned but slightly conflicting, with a bias parameter for the speaker's pull toward status.
  • I3. The authors judge models jointly on fit, complexity (AIC), and interpretability, and they refuse to adopt a better-fitting curve whose parameters explain nothing.
  • I4. They test the full model against a nested simplified model with one parameter removed, using a likelihood-ratio test and Akaike weights.
  • I5. Splitting one label ("Jespersen's cycle") into a form-level process and a function-level process prevents conflating structure with meaning.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): intensity or emphasis detection in prag could weight markers like "really" or "at all" by corpus frequency, so that worn-out intensifiers are not read as strong speech-act signals.
  • I2 (frames): implicature and irony reasoning could include an explicit speaker-bias term, so that overstatement is discounted in an explainable, parameterized way.
  • I3 (learn): when choosing between repair rules or learned components, record AIC-style complexity penalties and prefer components whose parameters map onto linguistic causes.
  • I4 (learn): ablation-style negative controls could be reported as nested-model comparisons with explicit significance, rather than raw accuracy differences only.
  • I5 (tree): annotation of negation in UD trees could record the form, such as bipartite versus single marker, separately from its pragmatic force, which would be passed to frames.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia · United States233 works · 65,583 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 17,450 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 17,296 worksSocial Sciences · 1,954 worksDecision Sciences · 249 worksManagement Science and Operations Research · 134 worksCultural Studies · 20 works

Cite

Cite as Christopher Ahern and Robin Clark. 2017. Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.10.11

@article{ahern2017conflict,
  title = {{Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle}},
  author = {Christopher Ahern and Robin Clark},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.10.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.11}
}

References

60 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6). 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705. ↗
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2013. Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 6. 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.2. van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. The Jespersen cycles. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.146.05auw. van der Auwera, Johan & Annemie Neuckermans. 1997. Jespersen’s cycle and the interaction of predicate and quantifier negation. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 453–478. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9 783110197327.453. ↗
  3. Benz, Anton, Gerhard Jaeger & Robert van Rooij (eds.). 2006. Game theory and pragmatics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/97 80230285897. ↗
  4. Blume, Andreas, Douglas V. DeJong, Yong-Gwan Kim & Geoffrey B. Sprinkle. 2001. Evolution of communication with partial common interest. Games and Economic Behavior 37(1). 79–120. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.2000.0830. ↗
  5. Börgers, Tilman & Rajiv Sarin. 1997. Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory 77(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10 .1006/jeth.1997.2319. Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson. 2003. Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636. ↗
  6. Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic change in germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 89). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.89. ↗
  7. Bush, Robert & Frederick Mosteller. 1955. Stochastic models for learning. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/14496-000. ↗
  8. Crawford, Vincent P. & Joel Sobel. 1982. Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50(6). 1431–1451. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913390. ↗
  9. Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012391. ↗
  10. Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17(1-2). 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79. ↗
  11. Dahl, Östen. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 471–480. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.24dah. ↗
  12. De Jaegher, Kris & Robert van Rooij. 2014. Game-theoretic pragmatics under conflicting and common interests. Erkenntnis 79(4). 769–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9465-0. ↗
  13. Deo, Ashwini. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(14). 1–52. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.14. ↗
  14. Dessalles, Jean-Louis. 2007. Why we talk. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. find
  15. Dessalles, Jean-Louis. 2014. Optimal investment in social signals. Evolution 68(6). 1640–1650. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12378. ↗
  16. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2). 151–195. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.2 1.2.151. ↗
  17. Ecay, Aaron & Meredith Tamminga. 2015. Persistence as a diagnostic of grammatical status: The case of Middle English negation. In Rob Truswell & Eric Mathieu (eds.), From micro-change to macro-change, 202–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198747840.003.00 13. ↗
  18. Ahern & Clark Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/1 0.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001. ↗
  19. Enke, Dankmar, Roland Muhlenbernd & Igor Yanovich. 2016. The emergence of the progressive to imperfective diachronic cycle in reinforcement-learning agents. In Sean Roberts, Christine Cuskley, Luke McCrohon, Lluis Barcelo-Coblijn, Olga Feher & Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference (EVOLANG11), 97–105. https : //doi.org/10.17617/2.2248195. ↗
  20. Farrell, Joseph. 1993. Meaning and credibility in cheap-talk games. Games and Economic Behavior 5(4). 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1993.1029. ↗
  21. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic inquiry 6(3). 353–375. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177882. ↗
  22. Franke, Michael, Tikitu de Jager & Robert van Rooij. 2012. Relevance in cooperation and conflict. Journal of Logic and Computation 22(1). 23–54. https://d oi.org/10.1093/logcom/exp070. ↗
  23. Gardiner, Alan H. 1905. The word. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41–42(1). 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1524/zaes.1905.4142.jg.13 0. ↗
  24. Gintis, Herbert, Eric Alden Smith & Samuel Bowles. 2001. Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213(1). 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406. ↗
  25. Givón, Talmy. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, funtion, ontology. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 69–112. New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_005. ↗
  26. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 22–40. New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003. ↗
  27. Hofbauer, Josef & Simon M. Huttegger. 2015. Selection-mutation dynamics of signaling games. Games 6(1). 2–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/g6010002. ↗
  28. Hofbauer, Josef & Karl Sigmund. 1998. Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.10 17/CBO9781139173179. ↗
  29. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97811 39165525. ↗
  30. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle Jäger, Gerhard, Lars P. Metzger & Frank Riedel. 2011. Voronoi languages: Equilibria in cheap-talk games with high-dimensional types and few signals. Games and Economic Behavior 73(2). 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2011.0 3.008. ↗
  31. Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Høst. reprinted in Jespersen 2025. https://archive.org/details/cu31924026 632947. ↗
  32. Jespersen, Otto. 2025. Negation in english and other languages (Classics in Linguistics 8). Berlin: Language Science Press. reprint of Jespersen 1917. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14843487. ↗
  33. Jones, Taylor. 2015a. ‘Eem’ negation in AAVE: a next step in Jespersen’s cycle. In Sunghye Cho (ed.), 39th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics (22)), 159–166. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol 22/iss1/18/. ↗
  34. Jones, Taylor. 2015b. Toward a description of African American Vernacular English dialect regions using “Black Twitter”. American Speech 90(4). 403–440. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3442117. ↗
  35. Kimura, Motoo. 1955a. Solution of a process of random genetic drift with a continuous model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 41(3). 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.41.3 .144. ↗
  36. Kimura, Motoo. 1955b. Stochastic processes and distribution of gene frequencies under natural selection. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20. 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1101/SQB.1955.020.01.006. ↗
  37. Kimura, Motoo. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217(5129). 624–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/217624a0. ↗
  38. Kiparsky, Paul & Cleo Condoravdi. 2004. Tracking Jespersen’s cycle. Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory 2. 172–197. https://doi.org/10.26220/mgdlt.v2i1.2542. ↗
  39. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic analysis 25(3-4). 209–257. Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor (eds.). 2000–. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English second edition. University of Pennsylvania. https://www.ling.up enn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-4/index.html. ↗
  40. Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0 954394500000168. ↗
  41. Ahern & Clark Kullback, Solomon & Richard A. Leibler. 1951. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22(1). 79–86. http://www.jstor.org/st able/2236703. ↗
  42. Ladusaw, William A. 1993. Negation, indefinites, and the Jespersen cycle. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 19. 437–46. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v19i1.15 15. ↗
  43. Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470693711. ↗
  44. Lewis, David. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22(1). 18–67. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/BF00413598. ↗
  45. Martineau, France & Raymond Mougeon. 2003. A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language 79(1). 118– 152. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4489387. ↗
  46. Maynard Smith, John. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806292. ↗
  47. Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 6(12). 384. ↗
  48. Mesoudi, Alex & Andrew Whiten. 2008. The multiple roles of cultural transmission experiments in understanding human cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363(1509). 3489–3501. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0129. ↗
  49. Moran, Patrick Alfred Pierce. 1958. Random processes in genetics. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 54(1). 60–71. https://do i.org/10.1017/S0305004100033193. ↗
  50. Oechssler, Jörg & Frank Riedel. 2002. On the dynamic foundation of evolutionary stability in continuous models. Journal of Economic Theory 107(2). 223– 252. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2001.2950. ↗
  51. Posner, Rebecca. 1985. Post-verbal negation in non-standard French, a historical and comparative view. Romance Philology 39(2). 170–197. find
  52. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. ↗
  53. Schaden, Gerhard. 2012. Modelling the “Aoristic drift of the present perfect” as inflation: An essay in historical pragmatics. International Review of Pragmatics 4(2). 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040207. ↗
  54. Schwegler, Armin. 1988. Word-order changes in predicate negation strategies in Romance languages. Diachronica 5(1-2). 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/d ia.5.1-2.03sch. Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle Selten, Reinhard. 1980. A note on evolutionarily stable strategies in asymmetric animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 84(1). 93–101. https://doi.or g/10.1016/S0022-5193(80)81038-1. ↗
  55. Skyrms, Brian. 2010. Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801995808 28.001.0001. ↗
  56. Sutton, Richard S. & Andrew G. Barto. 1998. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. https://mitpress.ublish.com/ebook/re inforcement-learning-an-introduction-2-preview/2351/Cover. ↗
  57. Taylor, Peter D. & Leo B. Jonker. 1978. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences 40(1–2). 145–156. https://doi.org/10.10 16/0025-5564(78)90077-9. ↗
  58. Trivers, Robert L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46(1). 35–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2822435. ↗
  59. Wallage, Phillip. 2008. Jespersen’s cycle in Middle English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. Lingua 118(5). 643–674. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.lingua.2007.09.001. ↗
  60. Yanovich, Igor. 2017. Analyzing imperfective games. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(17). 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.17. Christopher Ahern University of Pennsylvania Department of Linguistics 3401-C Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA cahern@ling.upenn.edu Robin Clark University of Pennsylvania Department of Linguistics 3401-C Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA rclark@ling.upenn.edu ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ahern-2017-conflict-cheap-talk-jespersens-cycle/