Skip to main content
×
×
Home

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

  • BEN AMBRIDGE (a1) and RYAN P. BLYTHING (a2)
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 girlThe 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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Ben Ambridge, School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford St South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA. e-mail: Ben.Ambridge@Liverpool.ac.uk
Footnotes
Hide All
[*]

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33, 952–65.
Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science 32, 789834.
Ambridge, B. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-)grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Science 37, 508–43.
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.
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.
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2015). A Constructivist account. In MacWhinney, B. & O'Grady, W. (eds), Handbook of language emergence, 478510. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
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.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2012a). Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition 123, 260–79.
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, 4581.
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, 4762.
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.
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.
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, 87129.
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.
Blything, R. P. Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2014). Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization. PLoS ONE.
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, 73101. Oxford: Blackwell.
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, 5583.
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. 153186).New York: Academic Press.
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.
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. 6994). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Brooks, P. J. & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument-structure constructions. Language 75, 720–38.
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K. & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70, 1325–37.
Brooks, P. J. & Zizak, O. (2002). Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity? Journal of Child Language 29, 759–81.
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Hoffman, Thomas, Trousdale, T. & G. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 4969). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26, 609–51.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234272.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
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. 107112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dowman, M. (submitted). Minimum description length as a solution to the problem of generalization in syntactic theory. Machine Learning and Language.
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.
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73, 135–76.
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 355.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 131–53.
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.
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.
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.
Hsu, A. S. & Chater, N. (2010). The logical problem of language acquisition: a probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science 34, 9721016.
Hsu, A. S., Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2011). The probabilistic analysis of language acquisition: theoretical, computational, and experimental analysis. Cognition 120, 380–90.
Hsu, A. S., Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2013). Language learning from positive evidence, reconsidered: a simplicity-based approach. Topics in Cognitive Science 5, 3555.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds), Usage-based models of language, 163. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31, 883914.
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.
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.
Perek, F. & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: the functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108127.
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.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua 92, 377410.
Ruh, N. & Westermann, G. (2009). OXlearn: a new MATLAB-based simulation tool for connectionist models. Behavior Research Methods 41, 1138–43.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & PDP Research Group (1988). Parallel distributed processing, Vol. 1 (pp. 354362). IEEE.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative evidence and preemption: a constructional approach to ungrammaticality. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 513–31.
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children's and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgement tasks. Cognitive Development 19, 1534.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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, 4171.
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56, 165209.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Child Language
  • ISSN: 0305-0009
  • EISSN: 1469-7602
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-child-language
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed