1 The Competition Model Brian MacWhinney- CMU Elizabeth BatesCsaba PléhMichèle Kail Janet...
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 The Competition Model Brian MacWhinney- CMU Elizabeth BatesCsaba PléhMichèle Kail Janet...
1
The Competition Model Brian MacWhinney- CMU
Elizabeth Bates Csaba Pléh Michèle Kail
Janet McDonald Antonella Devescovi Klaus-Michael Köpcke
Kerry Kilborn Takehiro Ito Ovid Tzeng
Judit Osman-Sági Jeffrey Sokolov Beverly Wulfeck
Vera Kempe Arturo Hernandez Ping Li
Yoshinori Sasaki
Empirical Results Published in:
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
15 articles since then
2
1. The Input
A. Lexical Functionalism -- constructions
B. Input-driven Learning -- cues, frequencies Cue validity predicts cue strength [p(function)|form] - comprehension
[p(form)|function] - production
3
2. The Learner
Distributed representations -> transfer Emergent modularity
Neuronal commitment, automaticity Capacity
Functional neural circuits Perspective-taking
4
3. The Context
Classroom context Negative feedback is positive feedback Instructional format interacts with learner
characteristics Role of computerized instruction Setting up input contexts
Role of lexical richness Learner must learn how to learn
5
1A. Lexical Functionalism
Form(cue, device)
Function(role, meaning)
6
Competition between devicesCompetition between interpretations
AgentMarking
PatientMarking
AgentFunction
PatientFunction
hidden
competition
competition
7
Cue validity -> cue strengthCues -> Interpretations Comprehension
Meanings -> Devices Production
hidden
pre
pertopact
thenomagr init
defgiv
8
Some cues
The tiger pushes the bear.
The bear the tiger pushes.
Pushes the tiger the bear.
The dogs the eraser push.
The dogs the eraser pushes.
The cat push the dogs.
Il gatto spingono i cani.
9
The dog was chased by the cat.
Comprehension - Interpretations compete
Agent: The dog vs. the cat
Patient: The dog vs. the cat Production - Devices compete
Dog placement: preverbal, postverbal, by-clause
Cat placement: preverbal, postverbal, by-clause
10
Cue interactions
• Peaceful coexistence• Cue coalitions• Competition between interpretations during
comprehension• Competition between devices during
production• Change from category leakage and
reinterpretation
11
Cues vary across languages
English: The pig loves the farmer
SV > VO > Agreement
German: Das Schwein liebt den Bauer.
Den Bauer liebt das Schwein
Case > Agreement > Animacy>Word Order
Spanish:El cerdo quiere al campesino.
Al campesino le quiere el cerdo.
"Case" > Agreement > Clitic > Animacy > Word Order
12
Exotic Patterns
Navajo:
*Yas lééchaa’í yi-stin.
snow dog him-frooze.
Lééchaaa’ yas bi-stin
dog snow him-frooze
7-level hierachy of Animacy -- switch reference
13
Basic results
Reliable Cues Dominate Cue Strengths Summate Competition Cells show most variability
14
Ungrammaticality
Continuity for pockets of grammaticality Hungarian possessive for accusative Croatian neutralized case in masculine Japanese “wa” marking
Slowdown for grammatical sentences in Russian, Hungarian, Spanish without the “preferred cue”
Cue summation for pronominal processing
15
English Word Order
NVN VNN NNV0
20
40
60
80
100
Language by Word Order Cognition (1982)
German
Italian
English
16
Italian Agreement
Ag0 Ag1 Ag20
20
40
60
80
100
Language by AgreementJVLVB 1984
German
English
Italian
17
English Children
2 3 4 5 Adult0
10
20
30
40
50
60English
Age
Word Order
Animacy
Agreement
18
Hungarian Children
3 4 5 60
10
20
30
40
50
Hungarian
Age
Case
Animacy
Word Order
19
Italian Children
2 3 4 5 Adult0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Italian
Age
Animacy
Word Order
Agreement
20
Cue validity (availability)
Task frequencyF(task T) / F(all tasks)
Simple availabilityF(cue A present) / F (all cases of task)
Contrast availabilityF(cue A present ^ cue A contrasts)
21
Cue validity (reliability)
Simple reliabilityF(cue A present ^ cue A correct) /
F (cue A present)
Contrast reliabilityF(cue A present ^ cue A contrasts ^ cue A correct) /
F (cue A present^cue A contrasts)
Conflict reliabilityF(cue A conflicts with other cue ^ cue A wins) /
F(cue A conflicts with any cue)
SA -> CA -> SR -> CR -> Conflict transition
22
Cue validity vs. cue strength
Cue validity is based on (tedious) counts of texts
Cue strength is first assessed through ANOVA analyses in Competition Model experiments
Cue strength is then modeled using MLE
23
MLE models of cue strength
P (first noun) = ∏ S i (first) / ∏ S j (others) Two choice case
P (first noun) = ∏ S i (first) /∏ S i (first) + ∏ S j (second)
Models vary number of parameters and can be additive or multiplicative
24
Pronouns - an online example
MacDonald and MacWhinney (1989) Just before dawn, Lisa was fishing with Ron in the boat,
and she caught a big trout right away.
and lots of big trout were biting. Priming of referent at 500 msec for unambiguous
gender. Slowdown in processing of probes right at 0msec
delay when there is a gender contrast only.
25
Pronouns - implicit causalityMcDonald and MacWhinney (1994)Probes presented at 4 Delay Times:
D1 D2 D3 D4
* 100 * pro * 200 * end *
Gary amazed Ellen time after time, because he was so talented.
N1 V N2 filler , because PRO predicate.
Probes: referent Garynon-referent Ellendistractor Frankverb amazed
26
Results and Competition
1. Slowdown in processing of probes at pronoun when there is a contrast.
2. Facilitation from pronoun onwards when first noun advantage agrees with implicit causality.
3. Activation of N2 right at the pronoun for E-S verbs!
4. Standard Competition Model cue summations and competitions, all right when they should occur.
27
2. The Learner
Distributed representations -> transfer Emergent modularity
Neuronal commitment, automaticity Capacity
Functional neural circuits Perspective-taking
28
Parasitic Learning -- Kroll
Translation route““turtle”turtle” ““tortuga”tortuga”
29
Transfer
Principle: Everything that “can transfer” will. Connectionism predicts transfer Word order can transfer Phonology can transfer Meaning can transfer Morphological markings cannot Early bilinguals as mixed
30
Transfer beyond the word
I want to go to school. Yo querer ir a escuela.
I would like to go to school. (I) would-like to-go to the-school. xx quer-rí-a ir a la-escuela.
Do you want to eat at my house? You want not want at me eat, huh? Translation with feedback may not be so bad.
31
Emergent modularity
Growing modules Farah and McClelland Jacobs, Jordan, Barto
Kim et al. fMRI study
32
Capacity restrictions
Detectability Complexity (for production) Assignability (memory load) Online load minimization
One good cue is enough (Russian, Spanish) Waiting for a reliable cue: Russian, Hungarian No use waiting for cue that will not be reliable,
German die Frau küßt der ...
33
DutchL1 EnglishL2
NVN VNN NNV0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Group 1
Group 2
Monolinguals in
Fig 8.5 Group x word order interaction in English
English
34
JapaneseL1 EnglishL2
NVN VNN NNV0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Novice JE 2MonolingualAdvancedMonolingual
Fig 8.7 Group x word order interaction in English
Japanese
EnglishJE2
35
EnglishL1 DutchL2
English E/D 1 E/D 2 E/D 3 Dutch0
20
40
60
80
100
Noun animacy
Case inflection
Word order
36
DutchL1 EnglishL2
Dutch D/E 1 D/E 2 D/E 3 English0
20
40
60
80
100
Noun AnimacyCase InflectionWord Order
Group
37
Aphasics - Word Order
NVN VNN NNV0
20
40
60
80
100
Language x Group x Word OrderBrain and Language (1986)
Word Order
English Broca
English Normals
Italians
38
Aphasics - Agreement
Ag0 Ag1 Ag20
20
40
60
80
100
Language x Group x AgreementBrain and Language (1986)
Agreement
English Broca
Italian Broca
English Normal
Italian Normal
39
Case in Croatian NormalsCase in Croatian Normals
Nom-Acc Acc-Nom Ambiguous0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Case x Animacy in Serbo-Croatian Normals
Case
AA
AIIA
40
Case in Croatian Aphasics
Nom-Acc Acc-Nom Ambiguous0
20
40
60
80
100
Case
Case x Animacy in Serbo-Croatian Broca's
AI
AA
IA
41
Word Order in Production
SVO SOV Other0
20
40
60
80
100
EnglishGermanItalianTurkish
Word Order in Broca's Aphasics
EG
I
TE
G I
T
E G I T
42
Some generalizations
Children learn the most valid cues first. Aphasics preserve the most valid cues.
They also rigidify on the strongest devices L2 learners attempt transfer, but then learn
cues. They gradually reach L1 levels of cue strength.
Connectionism predicts transfer.
43
3. The Context
Providing negative evidence
meaning
word wordcompetition
episodic support
analogicpressure
go + PAST
went go + edcompetition
episodicsupport
analogicpressure
44
Word learning - Merriman
demitassse cupcompetition
episodic
support
extensional
pressure
45
Recovery in syntax
Dative Role
to ___competition
“to”
episodic
supportextensional
pressure
V + NP + NP
verb
episodic
support
46
Complex cases
"pour arg1 arg2 arg3 "
"1 pours 2 into 3" "1 pours 3 with 2"
competition
lexical frame group frame:
1 verbs 3 with 2
group frame:
1 verbs 2 into 3
47
MacDonald et al.
48
MacDonald et al.
49
Open issues
Neuronal Commitment Social Identification Resonance Setting up Input Contexts
50
Conclusions
Models of Input, Learner, and Context must interlock
Competition Model is properly accounts for what we know about language learning, but
The model must be developed still further.