LNAI 2801 Discovering Clusters in Spatial Data Using Swarm Intelligence 1st Edition by Gianluigi Folino, Agostino Forestiero, Giandomenico Spezzano ISBN 9783540200574 354020057X
LNAI 2903 A Tableaux System for Deontic Interpreted Systems 1st Edition by Guido Governatori, Alessio Lomuscio, Marek Sergot ISBN 9783540200574 354020057X
Abstract. This paper describes an investigation of two computer models of how vowel systems can be transferred from one generation to the next. Humans tend to reduce the articulation of the vowels (and other speech sounds) they produce. If infants would learn on the basis of these reduced signals, vowel systems would collapse rapidly over time. As this is not observed in practice, some mechanism must be present to counter it. Two candidate mechanisms are investigated in this paper: compensatory expansion of articulations learned on the basis of reduced speech sounds and learning on the basis of more carefully articulated speech. It turns out that larger vowel systems with central vowels can only remain stable when learning is based on carefully articulated speech.
1 Introduction
This paper investigates under what circumstances vowel systems are stable when they are transferred from generation to generation in a population of language users. It is obvious that stable transfer occurs. This can be deduced from the observation that children learn to reproduce the vowel systems of their parents as closely as possible in many ways. Hence, for example, the subtle distinctions in pronunciation between closely related dialects, which can be identified readily by speakers. Such stable transfer is not directly obvious. After all, in rapid, casual speech (the kind people use most often) articulation of speech sounds is reduced. This means that the acoustic distance between the different speech sounds becomes less. In vowels this is especially noticeable. The simplest assumption one can make about learning of speech by infants is that they make a statistical analysis of the speech sounds they hear. However, in that case one would expect systems of speech sounds to become slightly more reduced in every new generation, as the most frequently occurring speech is reduced. This would lead to a relatively rapid collapse of the system of speech sounds. Such collapses are not generally observed in the way languages change over time. Sound systems of languages sometimes change rather rapidly over time (e. g. [8]), but such change is different in nature from the collapse due to reduction in articulation. In the case of the collapse of a vowel system, for example, one would expect vowels to move more and more to a central articulation (such as the vowel in the English word the) and different vowels to merge when they get too close together acoustically. In reality one observes complex shifts, mergers and splits of vowels (e.g. [4]). However, these changes preserve the general positions of- and distances between the different vowels in the vowel system.
Therefore the assumption of purely statistical learning must be fallacious. There must be a mechanism that prevents collapse of speech sounds when infants learn them. Two possible mechanisms will be compared in this paper. In order to keep the simulation tractable, only transfer of vowel systems was studied. An extra advantage of vowel systems is that their acquisition and transfer has been relatively well studied. Both learning mechanisms use the statistical distribution of vowels in the input to determine the position of the vowels that are learned. The first mechanism (the compensationmechanism) uses all the available input, but uses the knowledge that the input consists of a reduced version of the original vowel system. It undoes the contraction of the vowel system by applying an expansion that approximates the inverse of the contraction.
The second mechanism (the infant-directedspeechmechanism) assumes that the input the infant really uses to learn is not as reduced as rapid casual speech. Instead of using all available data for a statistical analysis, the infant only learns on the basis of speech that is articulated more carefully than rapid, casual speech. Such input can be recognized from characteristics of the signal itself (slower speed, clearer intonation, higher volume) or from the setting in which the sound is perceived (one-to-one interactions between the infant and the caretaker, for example).
In a sense, these mechanisms are minimal implementations of learning bias. Bias can be caused by a tendency of a learning mechanism to find representations that are different from the statistical distribution of the input data. It can also be caused by the selection of input data, such that the distribution of the data on which learning is based is different from the distribution of the complete data set. The first possibility is represented by the compensation mechanism; while the second possibility is represented by selective attention to better articulated input data. The algorithms presented below are minimal. The compensation mechanism is the exact inverse (except for noise) of the reduction while the selection mechanism only pays attention to the best articulations. Any other implementation of these mechanisms must perform less well.
There is apriori evidence that both processes could play a role. In order for infants to imitate adults, they must be able to match the sounds they produce with the sounds they perceive from adults. The same vowel produced by an infant and by an adult is quite different acoustically, due to the infant’s shorter vocal tract. Therefore infants have to do a normalization of the signals they perceive. If infants are able to do this, it is not unlikely that they are able to do a similar normalization of reduced speech sounds to more expanded versions of the same speech sounds.
Also, there is ample evidence that the kind of speech that is addressed to infants is more carefully articulated than ordinary, adult-directed speech [7]. Such speech is distinguished by slower speed, exaggerated intonation and higher volume. It has been found that infants tend to prefer such speech to ordinary speech [2]. It can therefore be inferred that the kind of input that children use to base their vowel systems on does not necessarily consist of the rapid, casual speech that is used most often between adults. Combined with the fact that this special infant-directed register is found almost universally in different cultures, it would appear that such input plays an important role in the way speech sound systems are learned by children.
This paper uses a computer model to investigate the dynamics of both mechanisms. The computer model is inspired in part by the work on language games [13,14] and in part by the work on the iterated learning model [5,6]. The computer model consists of a population of agents. All of these agents can produce and perceive speech sounds in a human-like way. Some of these agents model infants and others
model adults. Adults talk to infants in a more or less reduced register, and infants learn the adults’ vowel system on the basis of the distribution of the input signals they receive. The imperfectness of articulation is modeled by adding noise to the articulatory positions that agents try to achieve. After a while, infants change into adults, old adults are removed from the population and new infants are added to it. It can be monitored over time how the vowel systems in the population change.
2 The Simulation
The simulation is based on a population of agents that can interact with each other. Agents exist in two modes: adult mode and infant mode. Adult agents have a fixed repertoire of vowels, while infant agents are busy acquiring a repertoire. Interactions consist of an adult agent producing a vowel from its repertoire, and an infant agent listening to that sound and updating its repertoire of speech sounds. Each agent participating in the interaction is chosen at random. After a certain number of interactions, the adult agents are removed from the population, infant agents become adult agents and a new batch of infant agents is added to the population. The agent’s vowel systems are logged and it can be investigated how they change over time.
The agents can produce and perceive speech sounds in a human-like way. For this purpose they are equipped with a vowel synthesizer and a means to calculate distances between vowels. The vowel synthesizer is the same as the one used in [1]. It has three articulatory inputs: the position of the tongue in the front-back dimension, the height of the tongue and the amount of rounding of the lips. These correspond to the parameters that phoneticians usually employ to describe vowels [9, ch. 9]. In the model each input can have values between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to most front, lowest and least rounded, while 1 correspond to most back, highest and most rounded. Thus the vowel [a] can be described by the parameter values (0, 0, 0) while the vowel [u] can be described by the parameter values (1, 1, 1). Its outputs consist of the frequencies of the first four formants (resonances of the vocal tract). For example, for the inputs (0, 0, 0), the output would be (708, 1517, 2427, 3678) and for the inputs (1, 1, 1) the output would be (276, 740, 2177, 3506). With this articulatory model all ordinary vowels can be generated
The perception function is very similar to the one used in [1] but it follows the original perception model by Schwartz etal. [12] more closely. It is based on the observation that most vowel signals can be simplified with what is called an effective second formant. Vowel signals generally have multiple peaks in their frequency spectrum, each peak corresponding with a resonance frequency of the vocal tract. However, one can generate an artificial signal that sounds very similar to the original vowel using a frequency spectrum that has only two peaks. The position of the first peak in such a spectrum is equal to the position of the first peak in the original spectrum, but the position of the second peak is a non-linearly weighted sum of the positions of the second, third and fourth peaks in the original spectrum. This second peak is called the effectivesecondformant.
The position of the effective second formant can be calculated using a formula due to Mantakas etal. [11] that was adapted by [12]. In the perception model, frequencies in Hertz are converted to the more perceptually inspired Bark frequency scale. Equal distances in the Bark scale correspond to equal perceived differences in pitch.
The conversion is performed with the following formula:
Given the first formant and the effective second formant in Barks, the perceptual distance between two vowels a and b can then be calculated as follows:
where F1 is the first formant and F’2 the effective second formant (of vowels a and b, respectively). D is the perceptual distance and λ is a constant that regulates the importance of the effective second formant relative to the first formant. It has a value of 0.3 in all experiments presented here, a value which has been found to generate perceptually realistic distances [12].
Agents engage in interactions. For each interaction an adult agent and an infant agent are chosen randomly from the population. In all experiments presented here, the population contains 20 adult agents and 20 infant agents. An adult chooses a random vowel from its repertoire and produces this. The infant perceives this signal and uses it to derive the possible vowels that are used in the population. In all the experiments, 10 000 interactions are performed, after which all the adult agents are removed from the population, and the infant agents turn into adults.
As has been mentioned above, adults can produce utterances from their repertoire of vowels. For each of the agent’s vowels the articulatory parameters are stored. However, humans cannot produce utterances perfectly. In order to model this, noise is added to the articulatory parameters before they are synthesised. For each of the articulatory parameters, this noise is taken from the normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 0.05. Also, the sloppiness of agents’ articulations can be modelled by adding a bias for articulations to become more centralized. This is done in the following way:
where x is any of the articulators (position, height or rounding) and α is a constant that determines how much the articulations are attracted towards the centre. If α is 0, no reduction takes place, and if α is 1 all articulations are reduced to 0.5. A realistic value for α is relatively hard to determine for rapid, casual speech, as it is not known where the original articulations are supposed to lie, but a realistic value would be at least 20% (0.2). This can be deduced from the fact that the surface of the acoustic space (F1 -F’2 space) that is used for infant-directed speech, which can be considered carefully articulated, is at least 1.4 times the surface that is used for ordinary adultdirected speech (Hiu Mei Liu, personalcommunication). This amounts to a linear reduction of about 20%.
While the adult agents produce sounds, the infant agents perceive and learn speech sounds. In reality, learning must occur incrementally in infants. This means that each sound an infant perceives must slightly update the representations in its brain until the different vowel categories are represented. This could in principle be modelled with a neural network, but for simplicity of implementation, it was decided to use a batchlearning algorithm. Thus infant agents participate in a number of interactions and store all the signals that were used in those interactions. Then, when they are converted into adults, they derive the vowel categories from these stored signals.
Vowel categories are derived with an unsupervised classification algorithm called iterative valley seeking [3]. Iterative valley seeking is a parameter-free classification algorithm. This means that it makes no assumptions about the distribution that underlies the observed data points. It assumes that each peak in a distribution corresponds with a category, and it tries to locate these peaks by using the local density of data points. In order to estimate the local density, the method uses one parameter: the radius R of each point’s local neighbourhood. This parameter determines how much the distribution of data points is smoothed when determining the peaks.
This process works well in practice, and is not extremely sensitive to the value of R. A value of 0.3 was used here. However, in the simulations there existed a tendency for outliers to be interpreted as real vowels. These vowels were then produced when the infant became an adult, and spread rapidly through the population. In order to prevent such spurious vowels to spread through the population, a requirement was added that classes needed to contain a minimum number of data points before they were accepted as real vowels. In order to determine whether to accept a class as representing a genuine vowel or not, first the average number of data points per class was calculated. Every class that had more than one third of the average number of data points was accepted as a genuine vowel.
Iterative valley seeking and the selection criterion result in a number of classes with example data points, but not yet in an acoustic or articulatory representation of a vowel. The acoustic representation was determined directly from the data points of the class. It was decided that the best way to determine the acoustic prototype of a class was to take the point at which the density of the class was highest. As no assumptions could be made about the distribution of the data points, the K-nearest neighbour method was used, with K = 3. This means that the densest part of the class was assumed to lie at the point that had the nearest third neighbour. This simple method turns out to work well for the kinds of distributions and the number of data points used here.
The articulatory prototype corresponding to this acoustic data point was then found by the agent talking to itself. It started with a vowel at articulatory position (0.5, 0.5, 0.5). Small modifications were made to this, these were articulated and it was measured whether they moved the acoustic signal closer to the target signal. This process was iterated until no more improvement could be achieved. The size for each modification step was a random value from the normal distribution with mean 0.1 and standard deviation 0.01 .
In the implementation of the compensation mechanism, agents re-expand their vowel repertoire in order to compensate for the reduced articulation of the adult agents. This expansion is the opposite of the reduction described in equation (1): () exp 0.5 anded xxx β ←−−
where β is a constant that should have the value () 1 αα in order to compensate exactly for a reduction of size α. In all experiments presented here that use expansion, the value of β is chosen to compensate exactly for the value of α.
These methods result in reliable learning of a vowel system by a population of infant agents. However, the intention of the research was to check whether vowel systems would be stable when transfer was repeated over many generations.
3 Experiments
In the experiments, the stability of vowel systems over time was investigated. First, it had to be established that vowel systems do indeed collapse when learning is based on reduced speech. Therefore, the evolution over time of a five-vowel system (consisting of /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/ and /u/) was investigated when a minimally realistic amount of 20% reduction was present. The first generation of adults was initialized with the original vowel system, and this was transferred to successive populations of infants. As can be seen in figure 1 the system collapsed to a one-vowel system within 25 generations. In this figure, the vowel system of one agent from the population is plotted for each generation. The first- and effective second formant are plotted in such a way that the position of the vowels correspond to the way phoneticians usually plot them. The open carets represent the original vowels, the black dots vowels in subsequent generations and the open square the final vowel. This result establishes the necessity of an alternative mechanism to preserve vowel systems.
1. Collapse of a five-vowel system under 20% reduction
The first experiments were done with the same five-vowel system. The compensation mechanism was implemented with the same 20% reduction, but now with a 25% expansion that, in the ideal case, would exactly compensate the reduction. The infantdirected speech mechanism was implemented as a reduction of only 2%. Some reduction was used, as it cannot be assumed that infant-directed speech is perfect. However, no expansion was assumed. It turned out that no significant difference could be observed between the two mechanisms and that vowel systems were almost perfectly preserved over runs of 100 generations. An example of vowel system preservation in both cases is presented in figure 2. Again starting positions are indicated with open carets, intermediate ones with black dots and final ones with open squares.
The case of seven-vowel systems was more interesting. Three different sevenvowel systems were investigated. All these systems contained the vowels /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/ and /u/. One system (type 1) contained /↔/ (as in “bed”) and /↵/ (as in “pot”)Type 2 contained /y/ and /ø/ (front rounded vowels, as occur in French end German), while type 3 contained the vowels /} ∴/ (the vowel in English “the”).
F2’ (Bark
F1 (Bark)
Fig.
Fig. 2. Evolution of five vowel systems over time. The left frame shows the effect of the compensation mechanism and the right frame shows the effect of the infant-directed speech mechanism
In order to obtain a statistically significant comparison of the two mechanisms when transferring these vowel systems, the number of vowels per agent for each generation was monitored. This turned out to be a good measure of vowel system preservation. The evolution of the different types of vowel systems over 250 generations is shown in figure 3. Black lines indicate performance of the infant-directed speech mechanism while gray (orange) lines indicate the performance of the compensation mechanism. Neither of these mechanisms is better than the other in all cases. Also, for both mechanisms, significant reduction of the vowel systems is observed. Apparently, neither of the mechanisms is sufficient for preserving seven-vowel systems.
The combination of both mechanisms was therefore tested. This was implemented by using a reduction of 2% and a corresponding expansion of 100/49 ≈ 2.04%. As can be observed in figure 4 this resulted in much better preservation of vowel systems over time. Although vowel systems are still reduced over time, this happens so slowly that it could be realistic. It should also be kept in mind that the learning mechanism was constructed to avoid learning vowels that occurred infrequently. Once a vowel is lost, it is therefore not possible to relearn it, so that the system is biased towards shrinking vowel systems over time.
Fig. 3. Change of seven-vowel systems over time. Thick lines indicate averages, thin lines indicate 95% confidence intervals
F2’ (Bark
F1 (Bark)
Fig. 4. Evolution of average vowel system size when both compensation and infant-directed speech are used. Dotted lines indicate 95% confidence intervals
4 Conclusion and Discussion
Infants learn vowel systems on the basis of the sounds that their parents produce. However, the most frequent register of adult speech, rapid casual speech, is often very much reduced. It is therefore clear that infants cannot learn the categories of speech sounds on the basis of an unbiased statistical analysis of the speech signals they perceive. This would result in a rapid collapse of the language’s vowel system, as was shown in the first experiments presented above.
In the other experiments, two minimally sufficient models of preserving structure in vowel systems were compared. Although the exact behaviour of the models is of course dependent on the details of the learning algortihms, they were kept as simple as possible, and in a sense “minimal”; any other learning method would give less good learning results. Also, the simulation study was a qualitative study, and only measured the stability of vowel systems over time. No attempt was made to model the exact duration and trajectory of collapse of real human vowel systems. Therefore it is probably safe to draw qualitative conclusions on the basis of the models.
Both methods were based on statistical learning of the input data. In the first method, infant agents learned the number and the position of vowel categories on the basis of speech that was reduced by about 20%. However, the infant agents compensated for this by pushing the learned vowel categories away from the center of the articulatory space. In the second method, infant agents learned the position of vowel categories on the basis of speech that was only slightly reduced (2%). The infant agents did not compensate for the reduced articulation.
In the absence of experimental evidence, the method by which infants compensate is to be preferred, as infants have to perform renormalization of speech sounds in any case. The infant vocal tract produces signals that are quite different from those produced by the adult vocal tract for similar articulatory gestures. In order to learn to imitate speech sounds, infants need to be able to compensate for this. If such compensation needs to take place, an extra compensation to account for reduced articulation can be assumed to take place as well.
The criterion for comparison of the different methods is the number of generations over which vowel systems are preserved in the population. Although vowel systems of human languages can change rather rapidly [8] complex vowel systems of languages can remain stable for longer periods of time as well. Such stability must be present before other historic processes (influence of phonetic context, for example) can change vowel systems. A reasonable threshold for stability is preservation of a vowel system over approximately 50 generations, which corresponds to 800–1000 years in a (prehistoric) human population. After such a period of time, different historic processes generally have changed human vowel systems.
It was shown in the experiments that both methods were perfectly able to preserve five-vowel systems without central vowels. Such systems remained stable over at least 100 generations. On the basis of this data, no conclusion can therefore be drawn about which method best explains learning by infant. When learning of seven-vowel systems was tested, it was found that neither mechanism alone was able to assure stable transfer in all cases. However, a combination of both mechanisms was able to achieve stable transfer of vowel systems.
Either mechanism can account for learning of small vowel systems. As has been outlined above, the compensation mechanism is to be preferred in such a case. Although a more sophisticated compensation mechanism could probably be designed to preserve stability of more complex vowel systems, each automatic compensation mechanism must have vowel combinations that it cannot successfully reconstruct from the reduced input. After all, information does get lost in the reduction. Possibly compensatory mechanisms for seven vowel systems can still be designed, but human vowel systems can have up to at least 17 different vowels (Norwegian [15]), and given the experimental results, it is unlikely that such complex systems can be stably reconstructed from reduced articulations.
Therefore, for successful transmission of complex vowel systems, learning needs to be based on more carefully articulated examples as well. This would indicate that special infant-directed speech registers (motherese) are more important when a language has more vowels. Whether this really is the case has not been experimentally investigated so far, but data from a study of infant-directed speech in different languages [7] seems to indicate that the more vowels a language has, the more carefully articulated special infant-directed speech is. From the data in [7], it can be measured how much more area of the 2-D acoustic space is used for infant-directed (ID) speech than for adult-directed (AD) speech. It turns out that Russian, with a small (six-) vowel system has an ID/AD ratio of 1.73, English, with an intermediate size vowel system has a ratio of 1.85 and Swedish, with a large vowel system has a ratio of 1.96.
Additional data [10] shows that Mandarin Chinese with a vowel system that is slightly smaller than that of Russian has a ratio of about 1.4. These data seem to indicate that languages with large vowel systems use more carefully articulated infant-directed speech. This data corresponds well with the finding of this paper that vowel systems with larger number of vowels need carefully articulated examples to be transferred from one generation to the next.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the experiments presented here as well as from the infant-directed and adult-directed speech data is that carefully articulated examples are not necessary as long as small and simple vowel systems need to be learned. Compensation for reduced articulation can be performed by simple expansion of the learned vowel prototypes. However, more complex vowel systems can only be learned successfully when more carefully articulated examples are available. Such
carefully articulated examples can be found in infant-directed speech, and it is found that this speech register is more pronounced in languages with larger vowel systems.
References
1. de Boer, B.: Self-organization in vowel systems, Journal of Phonetics 28(4), (2000) 441–465
2. Fernald, A.: Four month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development 8, (1985) 181–195
4. Hock, H. H.: Principles of Historical Linguistics, second edition, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (1991)
5. Kirby, S.: Function, Selection and Innateness: The emergence of language universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1999)
6. Kirby, S.: Natural Language from Artificial Life, Artificial Life 8 (2002) 185–215
7. Kuhl, P. K., Andruski J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A. Kozhevikova, E. V., Rysinka, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F.: Cross-Language Analysis of Phonetic Units in Language Addressed to Infants, Science 277 (1997) 684–686
8. Labov, W.: Principles of Linguistic Change: internal factors, Oxford:Blackwell (1994)
9. Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I.: The Sounds of the World’s Languages, Oxford: Blackwell (1996).
10. Liu, H.-M., Tsao, F.-M. & Kuhl, P. K. Support for an expanded vowel triangle in Mandarin motherese. International Journal of Psychology, 35(3–4) (2000) 337
11. Mantakas, M, J.L. Schwartz & P. Escudier Modèle de prédiction du ‘deuxiéme formant effectif’ F2’—application à l’étude de la labialité des voyelles avant du français. In Proceesings of the 15th journées d’étude sur la parole. Société Française d’Acoustique, (1986) 157–161.
12. Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Vallée, N. & Abry, C.: The Dispersion-Focalization Theory of vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 25, (1997) 255–286.
13. Steels, L.: A Self-Organizing Spatial Vocabulary. Artificial Life 2(3) (1995) 319–332.
14. Steels, L.: The Synthetic Modelling of Language Origins, Evolution of Communication 1(1) (1997) 1–34.
15. Vanvik, A.: A phonetic-phonemic analysis of Standard Eastern Norwegian. Norwegian Journal of Linguistics 26 (1972) 119–64.
Another Random Scribd Document with Unrelated Content
Abgesandten — allerdings sehen sie eher kopfhängerisch und mattherzig, als ‘hartherzig’ aus.“
Paul hatte recht. An der Spitze eines Trupps von etwa zwölf Reitern kam Hartherz selber ihnen entgegen. Aber des Hauptmanns Erstaunen wuchs noch mehr. Keiner der Indianer trug Waffen, keiner wies auch nur den geringsten Schmuck an seinem Körper auf. Langsam und feierlich zogen sie heran, und die gegenseitige Begrüßung war ernst und gleichsam bedrückt. Da Hartherz nur die allernötigsten Worte geredet hatte, so verhielt sich auch Middleton zurückhaltend und schweigsam, und so rückte man lautlos und in gepreßter Stimmung in das Dorf ein.
Hier sah des Hauptmanns unruhig umherschweifendes Auge auf dem freien Platze inmitten der Wigwams die ganze Bewohnerschaft versammelt. Dieselbe bildete, nach Rang, Alter und Geschlecht geordnet, einen weiten Kreis. Auf einen Wink des Häuptlings öffnete sich derselbe; die Gäste ritten hinein und stiegen von den Pferden, die sogleich fortgeführt wurden.
Jetzt nahm Hartherz den Hauptmann und Paul bei den Händen und geleitete sie noch feierlicher als zuvor zu einer kleinen Gruppe, die des Kreises Mittelpunkt bildete. Hier zeigte sich des Rätsels Lösung.
Auf einem rohgezimmerten, aber augenscheinlich mit liebevollster Sorgfalt hergestellten, bequemen Sessel saß der Trapper, der greise Nathaniel Bumppo. Die Herzutretenden erkannten auf den ersten Blick, daß er im Begriff war, die letzte lange Reise anzutreten. Sein Blick war gläsern, seine Züge ein wenig hagerer als sonst, weiter aber zeigte sein Äußeres keine Veränderung.
Man hatte ihn so gesetzt, daß der Schein der sinkenden Sonne voll auf ihn fiel. Er war barhäuptig; die dünnen, weißen Locken wehten leise im sanften Abendwinde. Auf seinen Knien lag die lange Büchse, die übrigen Jagdgeräte befanden sich im Bereich seiner Hand. Zu seinen Füßen sah man die Gestalt eines ruhenden Hundes, Middleton aber erkannte bald, daß dies nur noch das von liebenden Händen ausgestopfte Fell des treuen Hektors war. Sein eigener Hund spielte in der Nähe mit dem Kinde des gefallenen Mahtoree, denn Tachechana hatte unter den Weibern der Pawnees eine Zuflucht gefunden. In des Sterbenden Nähe standen einige greise Indianer, um Zeugen zu sein, wie ein gerechter und furchtloser Krieger den Weg nach den glücklichen Gefilden des Jenseits antrat.
Hartherz neigte sich zu dem Sterbenden.
„Hört mein Vater die Worte seines Sohnes?“
„Rede,“ antwortete der Trapper leise und hohl, aber deutlich, während atemloses Schweigen in der Runde herrschte. „Ich verlasse das Dorf der Loups und werde bald aus dem Bereich deiner Stimme sein.“
„Möge der weise Häuptling sich wegen seiner Reise keine Sorge machen,“ fuhr der Pawnee fort. „Hundert Loups sollen ihm den Pfad von Dornen säubern. Mein Vater wird jetzt meinen jungen Männern erzählen, wieviel Mingos er tötete, und welche kühnen und gerechten Taten er getan, damit sie ihm nachahmen können.“
„Eine prahlende Zunge findet im Himmel der weißen Männer kein Gehör,“ antwortete der alte Mann. „Was ich tat, hat Gott gesehen; Seine Augen sind immer offen. Nein, mein Sohn, ein Bleichgesicht kann sein eigenes Lob nicht singen.“
Bescheiden, wenn auch ein wenig enttäuscht, trat der junge Häuptling zurück, um dem Hauptmann Raum zu geben. Dieser nahm eine Hand des Sterbenden in seine beiden und gab sich mit mühsam beherrschter Stimme zu erkennen. Ein Schimmer der Freude flog über des Greises Züge.
„Ich habe nichts vergessen,“ sagte er leise. „Ich erinnere mich Eurer und Eurer ganzen Gesellschaft, ja, und auch Eures Großvaters erinnere ich mich. Ich freue mich, daß Ihr wiedergekommen seid, weil ich englisch mit Euch reden kann; denn auf die Händler ist kein Verlaß. Wollt Ihr einem sterbenden Manne einen Gefallen erweisen?“
„Von Herzen gern, mein lieber, guter Freund!“
„Es ist weit, sehr weit,“ fuhr der Greis fort, sich oft unterbrechend und nach Atem ringend, „aber wenn einem Liebe und Freundschaft erwiesen wurde, soll man das nimmer vergessen. Da ist eine Niederlassung in den Otsegobergen —“
„Ich kenne den Ort,“ sagte der Hauptmann. Dem Sterbenden wurde das Sprechen immer schwerer.
„Nehmt diese Büchse, auch diese Tasche und das Pulverhorn, und sendet alles dem, dessen Namen auf dem Kolben zu lesen steht. Ein Händler schnitt denselben mit seinem Messer ein.“
„Es soll geschehen, wie Ihr wünscht. Kann ich noch mehr für Euch tun?“
„Viel mehr habe ich nicht zu hinterlassen. Meine Fallen bleiben meinem indianischen Sohne; er hat mir ehrlich und liebevoll die Treue gehalten. Wo ist er?“
Middleton winkte, und der Häuptling trat ehrfurchtsvoll vor seinen Vater.
„Pawnee,“ redete der Greis in der Sprache der Loups weiter, „unter meinem Volke ist es Sitte, daß der Vater, ehe er aus dieser Welt scheidet, dem Sohne seinen Segen erteilt. Ich will auch dich segnen: Möge der Gott der Weißen mit gütigem Auge deine Taten schauen, mögest du nie etwas begehen, darob er sein Antlitz verdüsterte. Ich meine und hoffe, daß wir uns dereinst wiedersehen werden; wir werden miteinander vor dem Angesicht deines Wakonda stehen, der dann kein anderer sein wird als mein Gott ...“ Dann wanderten seine Gedanken zu seinem Hunde. Er beugte sich nach vorn und fühlte nach den Ohren des Tieres. „Ja, Hundchen,“ sagte er, „wir müssen uns trennen. Du bist redlich, kühn und treu gewesen ... Sei gut zu ihm, Pawnee, um der Liebe willen, die du mir erwiesen.“
„Die Worte meines Vaters sind in meinen Ohren,“ antwortete Hartherz ernst.
„Hörst du, Hundchen, was der Häuptling versprochen hat?“ fuhr der Greis fort, bemüht, die Aufmerksamkeit der ausgestopften Nachbildung zu erregen. Er berührte die Lippen derselben mit den Fingern — da erkannte er die Wahrheit, wenngleich die Täuschung in ihrer ganzen Ausdehnung ihm verborgen blieb. Er lehnte sich zurück und senkte das Haupt auf die Brust.
„Der Hund ist tot!“ murmelte er nach einer langen Pause. „Hauptmann, wollt Ihr das Tier, das mir so lange und so treu gedient hat, mir zu Füßen in mein Grab betten?“
„Es soll geschehen,“ antwortete Middleton.
Wieder versank der Sterbende gleichsam in sich selber.
Während alles regungslos umherstand, beseitigten zwei junge Krieger vorsichtig den ausgestopften Hund.
Middleton und Hartherz setzten sich zur Rechten und zur Linken des Greises und beobachteten aufmerksam und traurig die Todesanzeichen auf dessen Antlitz. So saßen sie zwei lange Stunden. Ab und zu redete er noch einige Worte, als wolle er denen, die er liebte, noch Rat erteilen, sie wissen lassen, daß er ihrer gedachte.
Dann lauschte der ganze Stamm mit gespanntester Aufmerksamkeit, um von den letzten Gedanken dieses Weisen noch zu lernen.
Dann kam das Ende. Middleton fühlte seine Hand von der des Sterbenden plötzlich mit unglaublicher Kraft erfaßt; der Greis erhob sich und stand, von Hartherz und dem Hauptmann unterstützt, aufrecht auf seinen Füßen. Hoch erhob er das Haupt, hellauf funkelte sein Auge im Abendsonnenstrahl, und wie er einst in seinen jungen Jahren auf den Ruf der militärischen Führer geantwortet hatte, so entrang sich auch jetzt laut und weit vernehmbar seiner Brust ein letztes, bereitwilliges „Hier!“
Seine Seele war entflohen. Sanft ließen sie den Leib wieder in den Sitz zurücksinken. Der älteste der anwesenden Häuptlinge — der greise Le Balafré war's, der Sioux, den der großmütige Hartherz nach jenem Gemetzel am Flusse bei sich aufgenommen hatte — er nahm jetzt das Wort.
„Ein tapferer, ein gerechter und ein weiser Krieger ist nach den glücklichen Jagdgründen seines Volkes gegangen!“ so verkündete er der lauschenden Menge. „Als die Stimme Wakondas ihn rief, da war er bereit mit der Antwort. Geht, meine Kinder, gedenket des
gerechten Häuptlings der Bleichgesichter und räumt die Dornen von euren Pfaden!“
Im Schatten einiger mächtigen Eichen gruben sie sein Grab.
Bis auf den heutigen Tag wird dasselbe von den Pawnee-Loups sorgsam gehütet, und oft zeigen sie den Reisenden die Stätte, wo ein guter weißer Mann seinen letzten Schlaf schläft. Der Hauptmann Middleton hatte einen Stein zu Häupten des Grabes aufrichten lassen. Darauf las man Nathaniel Bumppos Namen, sein Alter, einen Spruch aus der Bibel und die Mahnung:
„Möge nie eine frevelnde Hand seine Gebeine stören!“
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your love for reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth!
