Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:07:58.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A connectionist model of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2015

BEN AMBRIDGE  and
RYAN P. BLYTHING
BEN AMBRIDGE*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
RYAN P. BLYTHING
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
*
Address for correspondence: Ben Ambridge, School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford St South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central question in language acquisition is how children build linguistic representations that allow them to generalize verbs from one construction to another (e.g., The boy gave a present to the girl → The boy gave the girl a present), whilst appropriately constraining those generalizations to avoid non-adultlike errors (e.g., I said no to her → *I said her no). Although a consensus is emerging that learners solve this problem using both statistical and semantics-based learning procedures (e.g., entrenchment, pre-emption, and semantic verb class formation), there currently exist few – if any – proposals for a learning model that combines these mechanisms. The present study used a connectionist model to test an account that argues for competition between constructions based on (a) verb-in construction frequency, (b) relevance of constructions for the speaker's intended message, and (c) fit between the fine-grained semantic properties of individual verbs and individual constructions. The model was able not only (a) to simulate the overall pattern of overgeneralization-then-retreat, but also (b) to use the semantics of novel verbs to predict their argument structure privileges (just as real learners do), and (c) to predict the pattern of by-verb grammaticality judgements observed in adult studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1245 - 1276
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was funded by a Leverhulme Trust grant (Grant RPG-158) to Ben Ambridge and an Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Centre +3 (PhD) award to Ryan Blything. <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/>. Account code: ES/J500094/1. Ben Ambridge is a Reader in the International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD) at the University of Liverpool. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L008955/1) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33, 952–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science 32, 789–834.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-)grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Science 37, 508–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Freudenthal, D. (in press). Is passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from adult grammaticality judgment and comprehension studies. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Brandt, S. (2013). ‘Lisa filled water into the cup’: the roles of entrenchment, pre-emption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of English locatives. Zeitschrift fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 61, 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2015). A Constructivist account. In MacWhinney, B. & O'Grady, W. (eds), Handbook of language emergence, 478–510. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2011). Children use verb semantics to retreat from overgeneralization errors: a novel verb grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 303–23.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2012a). Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition 123, 260–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Chang, F. (2012b). The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument structure overgeneralization errors. Language 88, 45–81.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F. & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: word learning, morphology and verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4, 47–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M, Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D. & Chang, F. (2014). Avoiding dative overgeneralization errors: semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29, 218–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L & Clark, V. (2009). A semantics-based approach to the ‘no negative-evidence’ problem. Cognitive Science 33, 1301–16.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Young, C. R. (2008) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children's and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106, 87–129.Google Scholar
Bidgood, A., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2014). The retreat from locative overgeneralisation errors: a novel verb grammaticality judgment study. PLoS ONE.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blything, R. P. Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2014). Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization. PLoS ONE.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 87, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: a theoretical symposium (pp. 153–186).New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & Brooks, P. J. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (eds), Beyond names for things: young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 352–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. V. & Baayen, H. R. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kramer, I. & Zwarts, J. (eds), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J. & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument-structure constructions. Language 75, 720–38.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K. & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70, 1325–37.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J. & Zizak, O. (2002). Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity? Journal of Child Language 29, 759–81.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Hoffman, Thomas, Trousdale, T. & G. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26, 609–51.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234–272.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dowman, M. (2000). Addressing the learnability of verb subcategorizations with Bayesian inference. In Gleitman, L. R. & Joshi, A. K. (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 107–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dowman, M. (submitted). Minimum description length as a solution to the problem of generalization in syntactic theory. Machine Learning and Language.Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C. & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17, 684–91.Google Scholar
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73, 135–76.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R. (1991a). Affectedness and direct objects: the role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41, 153–95.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R. (1991b). Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language 18, 115–51.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65, 203–57.Google Scholar
Hsu, A. S. & Chater, N. (2010). The logical problem of language acquisition: a probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science 34, 972–1016.Google Scholar
Hsu, A. S., Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2011). The probabilistic analysis of language acquisition: theoretical, computational, and experimental analysis. Cognition 120, 380–90.Google Scholar
Hsu, A. S., Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2013). Language learning from positive evidence, reconsidered: a simplicity-based approach. Topics in Cognitive Science 5, 35–55.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31, 883–914.Google Scholar
Noble, C. H., Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science 35, 963–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onnis, L., Roberts, M. & Chater, N. (2002). Simplicity: a cure for overgeneralizations in language acquisition? In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 720–725). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perek, F. & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: the functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language 37, 607–42.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua 92, 377–410.Google Scholar
Ruh, N. & Westermann, G. (2009). OXlearn: a new MATLAB-based simulation tool for connectionist models. Behavior Research Methods 41, 1138–43.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & PDP Research Group (1988). Parallel distributed processing, Vol. 1 (pp. 354–362). IEEE.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative evidence and preemption: a constructional approach to ungrammaticality. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 513–31.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children's and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgement tasks. Cognitive Development 19, 15–34.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Twomey, K. E., Chang, F. & Ambridge, B. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: a lexical distributional account of English locative verb class acquisition. Cognitive Psychology 73, 41–71.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56, 165–209.Google Scholar