Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T09:46:41.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Integration without Structured Representations: Response to Pater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Iris Berent  and
Gary Marcus
Iris Berent*
Affiliation:
Northeastern College of Science
Gary Marcus*
Affiliation:
New York University
*
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 125 Nightingale, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115 [i.berent@neu.edu]
[gfm1@nyu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pater's (2019) expansive review is a significant contribution toward bridging the disconnect of generative linguistics with connectionism, and as such, it is an important service to the field. But Pater's efforts for inclusion and reconciliation obscure crucial substantive disagreements on foundational matters. Most connectionist models are antithetical to the algebraic hypothesis that has guided generative linguistics from its inception. They eschew the notions that mental representations have formal constituent structure and that mental operations are structure-sensitive. These representational commitments critically limit the scope of learning and productivity in connectionist models. Moving forward, we see only two options: either those connectionist models are right, and generative linguistics must be radically revised, or they must be replaced by alternatives that are compatible with the algebraic hypothesis. There can be no integration without structured representations.

Keywords

algebraic rulesstructured representationconnectionismassociationismthe computational theory of mind

Information

Type
Perspectives
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. e75 - e86
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by NSF grants 1528411 and 1733984 (PI: IB).

References

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119-61. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris. 2013. The phonological mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, and Dupuis, Amanda. 2018. The unbounded productivity of (sign) language: Evidence from the Stroop task. The Mental Lexicon 12. 309-41. DOI: 10.1075/ml.17016.ber.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Dupuis, Amanda; and Brentari, Diane. 2014. Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Language Sciences 5:560. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00560.Google ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Marcus, Gary F., Shimron, Joseph; and Gafos, Adamantios I.. 2002. The scope of linguistic generalizations: Evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition 83. 113-39. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00167-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Pinker, Steven; and Shimron, Joseph. 1999. Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition 72. 1–44. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00027-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Pinker, Steven; and Shimron, Joseph. 2002. The nature of regularity and irregularity: Evidence from Hebrew nominal inflection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31. 459–502. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021256819323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Platt, Melanie; and Sandoboe, Gwendolyn M.. 2019. How we reason about innateness. Boston: Northeastern University, ms.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Wilson, Colin, Marcus, Gary; and Bemis, Doug. 2012. On the role of variables in phonology: Remarks on Hayes and Wilson 2008. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 97–119. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 2004. Descartes' baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 2013. Just babies: The origins of good and evil. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and McClelland, James L.. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22. 381–410. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Schützenberger, M. P.. 1963. The algebraic theory of context-free languages. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, vol. 35: Computer programming and formal systems, ed. by Braffort, P. and Hirschberg, D., 118-61. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/S0049-237X(08)72023-8.Google Scholar
Crick, Francis. 1989. The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature 337. 129-32. DOI: 10.1038/337129a0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1991. Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning 7. 195–225. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022699029236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico; and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2014. The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel Leonard. 2016. Dark matter of the mind: The culturally articulated unconscious. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., and Pylyshyn, Zenon W.. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28. 3–71. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, Robert, Mathis, Donald; and Badecker, William. 2013. The acquisition of anaphora by simple recurrent networks. Language Acquisition 20. 181–227. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2013.796950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallistel, Charles R. 2017. The coding question. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21. 498–508. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, Bruce, and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, John J., Marcus, Gary F., Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle; and Coppola, Marie. 1994. Sensitivity of children's inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language 21. 173–209. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000900008710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lake, Brenden M., and Baroni, Marco. 2017. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. arXiv:1711.00350 [cs.CL]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00350.Google Scholar
Loula, João, Baroni, Marco; and Lake, Brenden M.. 2018. Rearranging the familiar: Testing compositional generalization in recurrent networks. Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, 108-14. Online: http://aclweb.org/anthology/W18-5413.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal; and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101. 676–703. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, Gary F. 1998. Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology 37. 243-82. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, Gary F. 2001. The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Gary F. 2004. The birth of the mind: How a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F. 2018. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv:1801.00631 [cs.AI]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard; and Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29. 189–256. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1995.1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pater, Joe. 2019. Generative linguistics and neural networks at 60: Foundation, friction, and fusion. Language 95(1). e41–e74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Stochastic phonology. GLOT International 5. 1–13.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253. 530-35. DOI: 10.1126/science.1857983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28. 73–193. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, and Ullman, Michael T.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 456-63. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, Kim, and Juola, Patrick. 1999. A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science 23. 463-90. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2304_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56. DOI: 10.1080/01690969308406948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ramscar, Michael. 2002. The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology 45. 45–94. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00001-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, Frank. 1957. The perceptron: A perceiving and recognizing automaton (Project PARA). Report 85-460-1. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L.. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart et al., 216-71.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L.; and The, PDP Group, Research (eds.) 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2. MIT Press: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N.; and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926-28. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahin, Ned T., Pinker, Steven, Cash, Sydney S., Schomer, Donald; and Halgren, Eric. 2009. Sequential processing of lexical, grammatical, and phonological information within Broca's area. Science 326. 445-49. DOI: 10.1126/science.1174481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smolensky, Paul. 2006. Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. 2: Linguistics and philosophical implications, ed. by Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine, 27–160. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth S., and Kinzler, Katherine D.. 2007. Core knowledge. Developmental Science 10. 89–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Charles D. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar