Abstract:Human recursive numeral systems (i.e., counting systems such as English base-10 numerals), like many other grammatical systems, are highly regular. Following prior work that relates cross-linguistic tendencies to biases in learning, we ask whether regular systems are common because regularity facilitates learning. Adopting methods from the Reinforcement Learning literature, we confirm that highly regular human(-like) systems are easier to learn than unattested but possible irregular systems. This asymmetry emerges under the natural assumption that recursive numeral systems are designed for generalisation from limited data to represent all integers exactly. We also find that the influence of regularity on learnability is absent for unnatural, highly irregular systems, whose learnability is influenced instead by signal length, suggesting that different pressures may influence learnability differently in different parts of the space of possible numeral systems. Our results contribute to the body of work linking learnability to cross-linguistic prevalence.
Abstract:Previous work has argued that recursive numeral systems optimise the trade-off between lexicon size and average morphosyntatic complexity (Deni\'c and Szymanik, 2024). However, showing that only natural-language-like systems optimise this tradeoff has proven elusive, and the existing solution has relied on ad-hoc constraints to rule out unnatural systems (Yang and Regier, 2025). Here, we argue that this issue arises because the proposed trade-off has neglected regularity, a crucial aspect of complexity central to human grammars in general. Drawing on the Minimum Description Length (MDL) approach, we propose that recursive numeral systems are better viewed as efficient with regard to their regularity and processing complexity. We show that our MDL-based measures of regularity and processing complexity better capture the key differences between attested, natural systems and unattested but possible ones, including "optimal" recursive numeral systems from previous work, and that the ad-hoc constraints from previous literature naturally follow from regularity. Our approach highlights the need to incorporate regularity across sets of forms in studies that attempt to measure and explain optimality in language.