In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

This study found that the more language speakers there are, the more phonemes in the language. In addition, the more language speakers, the more vowels and consonants. While some language families have more phonemes than others, this did not affect the results. The goal of this paper was only to illustrate a link between the two and the authors hope this work encourages further examination into this relationship.

This study found that the more language speakers there are, the more phonemes in the language. In addition, the more language speakers, the more vowels and consonants. While some language families have more phonemes than others, this did not affect the results. The goal of this paper was only to illustrate a link between the two and the authors hope this work encourages further examination into this relationship.

Using ethnography, historical linguistics, paleoanthropology, and speech biomechanics, the present study examines the relationship between labiodentals and the post-Neolithic period with the introduction of agriculture and softer diets. The results offer support for the linguist, Charles Hockett's, hypothesis that the shift in bite configuration in the post-Neolithic period, as well as the persistence of overbite and overjet, facilitates and makes the articulation of labiodentals more prevalent. Using cross-cultural comparison, findings also reveal that societies that produce their food are more likely to evolve and keep labiodentals than those that are not food-producing. Contact with other societies is also a mode by which societies gain labiodentals. Lastly, the expansion of agricultural and food processing technology over time has been imperative to labiodental articulations.

This article presents a model of cultural evolution simulating the accumulation of tools in specialized and non-specialized populations under different demographic and environmental scenarios. The model predicts that the relationship between population size and repertoire size is nonlinear and can differ between non-specialized and specialized populations. For small population sizes, the non-specialized populations maintain knowledge better and therefore reach higher average repertoire sizes. In large populations, specialized populations can reach higher average repertoire sizes. This is because non-specialized population's total repertoire size is limited by the capacity of individuals to accumulate knowledge of different skills, while in specialized populations, each individual needs to know only a fraction of the population's repertoire. However, the model also predicts that specialized populations are more susceptible to information loss due to their subdivision of knowledge, and this can be amplified by demographic and environmental factors. The authors also use ethnographic data to analyze the relationship between population size and degree of craft specialization of societies, and how this may be influenced by ecological factors.