Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:34:15.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connectionism and Universals of Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Michael Gasser
Michael Gasser
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the implications of connectionist models of cognition for second language theory. Connectionism offers a challenge to the symbolic models which dominate cognitive science. In connectionist models all knowledge is embodied in a network of simple processing units joined by connections which are strengthened or weakened in response to regularities in input patterns. These models avoid the brittleness of symbolic approaches, and they exhibit rule-like behavior without explicit rules. A connectionist framework is proposed within which hypotheses about second language acquisition can be tested. Inputs and outputs are patterns of activation on units representing both form and meaning. Learning consists of the unsupervised association of pattern elements with one another. A network is first trained on a set of first language patterns and then exposed to a set of second language patterns with the same meanings. Several simulations of constituent-order transfer within this framework are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 179 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S., Merrill, J., & Port, R. (1989). Dynamic speech categorization with recurrent networks. In Touretzky, D., Hinton, G., & Sejnowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp, 398–406). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, G. (1989). A connectionist approach to word sense disambiguation. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Dolan, C. P., & Dyer, M. G. (1989). Parallel retrieval and application of conceptual knowledge. In Touretzky, D., Hinton, G., & Sejnowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp. 273–280). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Dolan, C. P., & Smolensky, P. (1989). Implementing a connectionist production system using tensor products. In Touretzky, D., Hinton, G., & Sejnowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp. 265–272). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1988). Finding structure in time (Technical Report 8801). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A., & Ballard, D. H. (1982). Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science, 6, 205–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanics of “Construction Grammar.” Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). Effects of equivalence classification on the production of foreign language speech sounds. In James, A. & Leather, J. (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 9–39). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. (1988). A connectionist model of sentence generation in a first and second language (Technical Report UCLA-AI–88–13). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
Hanson, S. J., & Kegl, J. (1987). PARSNIP: A connectionist network that learns natural language grammar from exposure to natural language sentences. Proceedings of the ninth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 106–119). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harris, C. L. (1989). Connectionist explorations in cognitive linguistics. Unpublished manuscript, Program in Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1986). Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in the micro-structures of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 282–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. (1985). Variations on a theme as the crux of creativity. In Hofstadter, D. R., Metamagical themas (pp. 232–259). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. I. (1986). Attractor dynamics and parallelism in a connectionist sequential machine. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 531–546). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kanerva, P. (1989). Sparse distributed memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native speaker intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59–92.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1989). A suggestion for a linguistics with connectionist foundations. In Touretzky, D., Hinton, G., & Sejnowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp. 301–314). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Volume 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L, Rumelhart, D. E., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 3–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115–133.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4, 135–183.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1987). The current convergence in linguistic theory: Some implications for second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 3, 1–19.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1989). Pattern association in a back propagation network: Implications for child language acquisition (Technical Report 8902). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosen, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of neurodynamics. New York: Spartan.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 319–362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986a). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986b). PDP models and general issues in cognitive science. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 110–149). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L, & PDP Research Group (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358–370). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sejnowski, T. J., & Rosenberg, C. R. (1987). Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text. Complex Systems, 1, 145–168.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1985). Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1983). On first language loss in the second language acquirer: Problems of transfer. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 222–231). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shea, P. M., & Lin, V. (1989). Detection of explosives in checked airline baggage using an artificial neural system. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2, 31–34.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Touretzky, D. S. (1989). Connectionism and PP attachment. In Touretzky, D., Hinton, G., & Sejnowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp. 325–332). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Walker, V. (1989). Competent scientist meets the empiricist mind. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 3, 5–17.Google Scholar
Waltz, D. L, & Pollack, J. B. (1985). Massively parallel parsing: A strongly interactive model of natural language interpretation. Cognitive Science, 9, 51–74.Google Scholar
Williams, R. J., & Zipser, D. (1989). A learning algorithm for continually running fully recurrent neural networks. Neural Computation, 1, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process: Vol. 1. Syntax. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar