This study uses an artificial language learning experiment and computational modelling to test Kiparsky's claims about Maximal Utilisation and Transparency biases in phonological acquisition. A Maximal Utilisation bias would prefer phonological patterns in which all rules are maximally utilised, and a Transparency bias would prefer patterns that are not opaque. Results from the experiment suggest that these biases affect the learnability of specific parts of a language, with Maximal Utilisation affecting the acquisition of individual rules, and Transparency affecting the acquisition of rule orderings. Two models were used to simulate the experiment: an expectation-driven Harmonic Serialism learner and a sequence-to-sequence neural network. The results from these simulations show that both models’ learning is affected by these biases, suggesting that the biases emerge from the learning process rather than any explicit structure built into the model.
Natural language reduplication can pose a challenge to neural models of language, and has been argued to require variables (Marcus et al., 1999). Sequence-to-sequence neural networks have been shown to perform well at a number of other morphological tasks (Cotterell et al., 2016), and produce results that highly correlate with human behavior (Kirov, 2017; Kirov & Cotterell, 2018) but do not include any explicit variables in their architecture. We find that they can learn a reduplicative pattern that generalizes to novel segments if they are trained with dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014). We argue that this matches the scope of generalization observed in human reduplication.
Reduplicative linguistic patterns have been used as evidence for explicit algebraic variables in models of cognition.1 Here, we show that a variable-free neural network can model these patterns in a way that predicts observed human behavior. Specifically, we successfully simulate the three experiments presented by Marcus et al. (1999), as well as Endress et al.’s (2007) partial replication of one of those experiments. We then explore the model’s ability to generalize reduplicative mappings to different kinds of novel inputs. Using Berent’s (2013) scopes of generalization as a metric, we claim that the model matches the scope of generalization that has been observed in humans. We argue that these results challenge past claims about the necessity of symbolic variables in models of cognition.
Reduplication is common, but analogous reversal processes are rare, even though reversal, which involves nested rather than crossed dependencies, is less complex on the Chomsky hierarchy. We hypothesize that the explanation is that repetitions can be recognized when they match and reactivate a stored trace in short-term memory, but recognizing a reversal requires rearranging the input in working memory before attempting to match it to the stored trace. Repetitions can thus be recognized, and repetition patterns learned, implicitly, whereas reversals require explicit, conscious awareness. To test these hypotheses, participants were trained to recognize either a reduplication or a syllable-reversal pattern, and then asked to state the rule. In two experiments, above-chance classification performance on the Reversal pattern was confined to Correct Staters, whereas above-chance performance on the Reduplication pattern was found with or without correct rule-stating. Final proportion correct was positively correlated with final response time for the Reversal Correct Staters but no other group. These results support the hypothesis that reversal, unlike reduplication, requires conscious, time-consuming computation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.