Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition

Abstract It is argued that the principles needed to explain linguistic behavior are domain-general and based on the impact that specific experiences have on the mental organization and representation of language. This organization must be sensitive to both specific information and generalized patterns. In addition, knowledge of language is highly sensitive to frequency of use: frequently-used linguistic sequences become more frequent, more accessible and better integrated. The evidence adduced is mainly from phonology and morphology and addresses the issue of gradience and specificity found in postulated units, categories, and dichotomies such as regular and irregular, but the points apply to all levels of linguistic analysis including the syntactic, semantic, and discourse levels. Appropriate models for representing such phenomena are considered, including exemplar models and connectionist models, which are evolving to achieve a better fit with linguistic data. The major criticism of connectionist models often raised from within the combinatorial paradigm of much existing linguistic theory – that they do not capture ‘free combination’ to the extent that rule-based systems do, is regarded as a strength rather than a weakness. Recent connectionist models exhibit greater productivity and systematicity than earlier variants, but still show less uniformity of generalization than combinatorial models do. The remaining non-uniformity that the connectionist models show is appropriate, given that such non-uniformity is the rule in language structure and language behavior.

[1]  F. D. Saussure Cours de linguistique générale , 1924 .

[2]  J. M. Blackburn The acquisition of skill : an analysis of learning curves , 1936 .

[3]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[4]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior , 1980 .

[5]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Silas Griggs,et al.  English verb inflection , 1974 .

[7]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[8]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[9]  D. Siegel Topics in English morphology , 1979 .

[10]  S. Thompson,et al.  Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse , 1980 .

[11]  Morris Halle,et al.  The rules of language , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[12]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[13]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Simulating a Skilled Typist: A Study of Skilled Cognitive-Motor Performance , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[15]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense , 1982 .

[16]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[17]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  How Language Structures Space , 1983 .

[18]  J.A. Anderson,et al.  Theory of categorization based on distributed memory storage. , 1984 .

[19]  B. Heine,et al.  Grammaticalization And Reanalysis In African Languages , 1984 .

[20]  S. Thompson,et al.  The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar , 1984 .

[21]  Lise Menn,et al.  The Repeated Morph Constraint: Toward an Explanation , 1984 .

[22]  Joan L. Bybee Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[23]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  A Learning Algorithm for Boltzmann Machines , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Paul Kiparsky,et al.  Some consequences of Lexical Phonology , 1985, Phonology Yearbook.

[25]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagating errors , 1986, Nature.

[27]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On learning the past-tenses of English verbs: implicit rules or parallel distributed processing , 1986 .

[28]  John W. Du Bois The Discourse Basis of Ergativity , 1987 .

[29]  S. Pinker,et al.  On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition , 1988, Cognition.

[30]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .

[31]  T. Bever,et al.  The relation between linguistic structure and associative theories of language learning—A constructive critique of some connectionist learning models , 1988, Cognition.

[32]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[33]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[34]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .

[35]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World , 1989 .

[36]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘Adjective’ , 1989 .

[37]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Learning distributed representations of concepts. , 1989 .

[38]  G. Lakoff Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[39]  Jon Aske,et al.  Disembodied Rules versus Patterns in the Lexicon: Testing the Psychological Reality of Spanish Stress Rules , 1990 .

[40]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Learning and Applying Contextual Constraints in Sentence Comprehension , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[41]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  S Pinker,et al.  Rules of language. , 1991, Science.

[43]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Natural Language Processing With Modular PDP Networks and Distributed Lexicon , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[45]  Gunnel Tottie,et al.  Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English , 1991 .

[46]  Beth L. Losiewicz The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology , 1992 .

[47]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture , 1993 .

[48]  D. Gary Miller,et al.  1. Theoretical Prerequisites , 1994 .

[49]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .

[50]  J. Elman,et al.  Learning and morphological change , 1995, Cognition.

[51]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[52]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  Three Frequency Effects in Syntax , 1997 .

[53]  D. Kemmerer,et al.  Phonotactics and Syllable Stress: Implications for the Processing of Spoken Nonsense Words , 1997, Language and speech.

[54]  J. Pine,et al.  Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development , 1997, Journal of Child Language.

[55]  Dirk Geeraerts,et al.  Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology , 1997 .

[56]  Michael Tomasello The New Psychology of Language , 1998 .

[57]  William D. Raymond,et al.  The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production 1 , 1999 .

[58]  U. Hahn,et al.  German Inflection: Single Route or Dual Route? , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[59]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast , 2000 .

[60]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  First steps in a usage based theory of language acquisition. , 2000 .

[61]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analogy in morphology: modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch , 2001 .

[62]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? , 2001 .

[63]  J. Hay Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? , 2001 .

[64]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production , 2002 .

[65]  R. Jackendoff Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution , 2002 .

[66]  Luigi Burzio Missing players: Phonology and the past-tense debate , 2002 .

[67]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[68]  J. Hay From Speech Perception to Morphology: Affix Ordering Revisited , 2002 .

[69]  John W. Du Bois THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE , 2003 .

[70]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. , 2003, Developmental science.

[71]  Adele E. Goldberg Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[72]  Gary Lupyan,et al.  Did, Made, Had, Said: Capturing Quasi-Regularity in Exception , 2003 .

[73]  Christopher T Kello,et al.  A neural network model of the articulatory-acoustic forward mapping trained on recordings of articulatory parameters. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[74]  Grover Hudson,et al.  PHONOLOGY AND LANGUAGE USE , 2004 .

[75]  Jean Christophe Verstraeh Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure , 2005 .

[76]  Geert Booij,et al.  Lexical Phonology and Morphology , 2006 .