What Complexity Differences Reveal About Domains in Language*

Abstract

An important distinction between phonology and syntax has been overlooked. All phonological patterns belong to the regular region of the Chomsky Hierarchy, but not all syntactic patterns do. We argue that the hypothesis that humans employ distinct learning mechanisms for phonology and syntax currently offers the best explanation for this difference.Keywords: Phonology; Syntax; Computational complexity; Language learning A role for phonology in cognitive scienceWhen it comes to the problem of how humans learn language, it appears that many computational learning theorists, cognitive scientists, and psychologists are primarily occupied with the problem of how humans learn to put words and morphemes together to form sentences. In this article, we argue that a further understanding of how sounds are put together to form words also bears directly on fundamental questions in cognitive science. In particular, we argue that computational analysis of the typology of patterns in phonology, when compared to the typology of patterns in syntax, reveals that cognitive learning mechanisms are likely multiple and modular in nature.The skew that many researchers exhibit toward morpho-syntax may really be a skew toward studying meaning. But we believe that it is because phonological systems impose different sound patterns in different languages without contributing to meaning that they are especially interesting. That is, phonology is about "Rules without Meaning" in Frits Staal's (1989) terms.Correspondence should be sent to

On Evaluation Metrics in Optimality Theory

“…This is a natural continuation of the current work and one that we find interesting. We note, however, that this direction-in which the learning criterion is uniform and any differences in learning between components derives from differences in the possible representations-seems incompatible with the view articulated by Heinz (2007) and Heinz and Idsardi (2013) that learning in phonology is fundamentally different from learning in other components. We hope that this article will make it easier to examine the two views and their implications more closely.…”

Empirical approaches to the study of language evolution

“…Thus, the shared component of syntax includes capabilities within the regular or finite state domain (also adequate to account for phonological phenomena in language Heinz & Idsardi, 2013). In contrast, the DCL component of syntax involves supra-regular computational capabilities like those underlying hierarchical linguistic structure (Fitch, 2014).…”

Universal Grammar and Biological Variation: An EvoDevo Agenda for Comparative Biolinguistics

“…Heinz and Idsardi (2011, 2013) and Heinz (2014) usefully summarize important lessons that linguists have derived from applying the Chomsky hierarchy to the study of natural languages. They highlight the fact that not all natural language patterns fall exactly in the same range within the Chomsky hierarchy.…”