Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T19:09:43.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction in processing is a by-product of language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Franklin Chang ,
Evan Kidd  and
Caroline F. Rowland
Franklin Chang
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/staff/franklin-chang/[email protected]://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/staff/caroline-rowland/
Evan Kidd
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia. [email protected]://psychology.anu.edu.au/_people/people_details.asp?recId=594
Caroline F. Rowland
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/staff/franklin-chang/[email protected]://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/staff/caroline-rowland/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both children and adults predict the content of upcoming language, suggesting that prediction is useful for learning as well as processing. We present an alternative model which can explain prediction behaviour as a by-product of language learning. We suggest that a consideration of language acquisition places important constraints on Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) theory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 350 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3):247–64.Google Scholar
Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L. & Fernald, A. (2012) Knowing a lot for one's age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 112(4):417–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F. (2002) Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26(5):609–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F. (2009) Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61(3):374–97.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2):234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, J. L. (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. I. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1992) Forward models: Supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16: 307–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C. & Altmann, G. T. M. (2003) Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(1):37–55.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (2012) Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology 48(1):171–84.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C. & Fernald, A. (2007) Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science 18(3):193–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mani, N. & Huettig, F. (2012) Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake – but only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38: 843–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008) Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science 11(3):F9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plaut, D. C. & Kello, C. T. (1999) The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In: The emergence of language, ed. MacWhinney, B., pp. 381–415. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rowland, C., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. (2012) The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125(1); 49–63.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E. & Williams, R. J. (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323(6088):533–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J. & Flanagan, J. R. (2011) Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:739–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed