Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

14
Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2

Transcript of Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

Page 1: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

Language, Mind, and Brainby Ewa Dabrowska

Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2

Page 2: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

6. The Polish genitive: an inflectional system without a default

• Masculine nouns can have either Gsg ending of –a or –u, and neither acts as a default. There seem to be semantic, morphological, and phonological factors involved. Special circumstances in table 8.1 do not identify a default. So all masculine nouns have irregular endings.

‘The Polish language is loveable’

Page 3: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

6.3 Adult productivity with Gsg

• According to dual-mechanism model, people should do better with fem and neut (regular) nonce words than with masc, but the opposite is true.

Page 4: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

6.4 Acquisition of the genitive inflection

• According to dual-mechanism model, children should acquire regular and irregular patterns differently (regular should have a strong onset, irregular should be gradual), but that is not the case.

Page 5: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

7. The final test case: The Polish dative

• Q: The formation of the Gsg for neuters is regular, so why do both children and adults have a hard time with it?

Page 6: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

7. The final test case: The Polish dative

• Q: The formation of the Gsg for neuters is regular, so why do both children and adults have a hard time with it?

• A. The neuter nouns are mostly packed into a few phonological shapes, rather than being broadly distributed across the potential spectrum. It may be that speakers just go with those common types and never create a fully abstract generalization (a rule) to cover all of them.

Page 7: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

8. Interim conclusions

• Q: What seems to be the preferred method for linguistic generalizations?

Page 8: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

8. Interim conclusions

• Q: What seems to be the preferred method for linguistic generalizations?

• A: Local, low-level generalizations are more robust than abstract rules, and people store both the inflected forms and the citation forms for many familiar words. The same information may be represented redundantly at different levels of abstraction.

Page 9: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Q: What are the advantages of the connectionist model?

Page 10: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Q: What are the advantages of the connectionist model?

• A:– Neurologically more plausible processing than

serial (ordered rule) computation– Simulate learning, including low-level

generalizations, sensitivity to frequency, patterning at various levels of abstraction

Page 11: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Q: Is it really possible to figure out whether a word is related to another one based only on grammatical facts?

Page 12: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Q: Is it really possible to figure out whether a word is related to another one based only on grammatical facts?

• A: Probably not. One needs access to semantic (and phonological) information as well, as we see in distinguishing between wisdom tooth (type of tooth > teeth) vs. sabre-tooth (type of tiger > -tooths). It all has to do with: CATEGORIZATION!

Page 13: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Notice that the edges of categories are flexible, as in:– Polish Gsg tenoru (voice) vs. tenora (singer)– louses (bad people) vs. lice– hanged (‘executed’) vs. hung– computer mouses/?mice vs. mice– Ramscar’s findings that semantic similarity

created a strong preference for irregular forms

Page 14: Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 8: On rules and regularity, pt. 2.

9. Challenges for connectionism

• Connectionism has limitations, but it is merely a model, and a new one at that. It is hoped that future models will be more realistic. But we also need to remember that connectionist models are only a small part of the picture, which includes theories and empirical studies…