Can connectionist models of phonology assembly account for phonology?

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 661-676

  Berent, Iris ^a  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PHONETICS;

HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PHONETICS;

EID: 0035757168     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196202     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. ALEGRE, M., & GORDON, P. (1996). Red rats eater exposes recursion in children's word formation. Cognition, 60, 65-82.
2. ALTMANN, G., & DIENES, Z. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants and neural networks. Science, 284, 977.
3. ANDREWS, S. (1982). Phonological recoding: Is the regularity effect consistent? Memory & Cognition, 10, 565-575.
4. ANS, B., CARBONNEL, S., & VALDOIS, S. (1998). A connectionist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. Psychological Review, 105, 678-723.
5. ARCHANGELI, D., & LANOENDOEN, L. (1997). Optimality theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. AVERY, P., & RICE, K. (1989). Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology, 6, 179-200.
7. BALOTA, D., & SPIELER, D. (1998). The utility of item-level analyses in model evaluation: A reply to Seidenberg and Plaut. Psychological Science, 9, 238-240.
8. BERENT, I., BIBI, U., & TZELGOV, J. (2000, November). The autonomous compulation of linguistic structure in reading: Evidence from the Stroop task. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.
9. BERENT, I., EVERETT, D., & SHIMRON, J. (2001). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 1-60.
10. BERENT, I., MARCUS, G., SHIMRON, J., & GAFOS, A. (in press). The scope of linguistic generalizations: Evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition.
11. BERENT, I., & PERFETTI, C. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146-184.
12. BERENT, I., PINKER, S., & SHIMRON, J. (1999). Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition, 72, 1-44.
13. BERENT, I., & SHIMRON, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition, 64, 39-72.
14. BERENT, I., SHIMRON, J., & VAKNIN, V. (2001). Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 644-665.
15. BESNER, D. (1999). Basic processes in reading: Multiple routines in localist and connectionist models. In P. A. McMullen & R. M. Klein (Eds.), Converging methods of understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. 413-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. BESNER, D., TWILLEY, L., MCCANN, R., & SEERGOBIN, K. (1990). On the association between connectionism and data: Are a few words necessary? Psychological Review, 97, 432-446.
17. BROWMAN, C. P., & GOLDSTEIN, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201-251.
18. BULLINARIA, J. A. (1997). Modeling reading, spelling, and past tense learning with artificial neural networks. Brain & Language, 59, 236-266.
19. CHOMSKY, N., & HALLE, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
20. CLAHSEN, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 991-1060.
21. COLTHEART, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). London: Academic Press.
22. COLTHEART, M., CURTIS, B., ATKINS, P., & HALLER, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589-608.
23. DAUGHERTY, K., & SEIDENBERG, M. (1992). Rules or connections? The past tense revisited. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 259-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. DELL, G., JULIANO, C., & GOVINDJEE, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149-195.
25. EIMAS, P. (1999). Do infants learn grammar with algebra or statistics? Science, 284, 433.
26. ELMAN, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
27. ELMAN, J., BATES, E., JOHNSON, M., KARMILOFF-SMITH, A., PARISI, D., & PLUNKETT, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. EVERETT, D. L., & BERENT, I. (1998). An experimental approach to the OCP: Evidence for violable identity constraints in Hebrew roots. Rutgers Optimality Archive. Available http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html (ROA-235).
29. FODOR, J., & PYLYSHYN, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.
30. FOWLER, C. A. (1993). Phonological and articulatory characteristics of spoken language. In G. Blasken, J. Dittman, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & C.-W. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: An international handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
31. GAFOS, D. (1998). Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16, 223.
32. GAFOS, D. (1999). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.
33. GASKELL, M., HARE, M., & MARSLEN-WILSON, W. (1995). A connectionist model of phonological representation in speech perception. Cognitive Science, 19, 407-439.
34. GASKELL, M., & MARSLEN-WILSON, W. (1996). Phonological variation and interference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 144-158.
35. GLUSHKO, R. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 674-691.
36. GORDON, P. (1985). Level ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21 73-93.
37. GREENBERG, J. (1950). The patterning of morphemes in Semitic. Word, 4, 196-208.
38. HAHN, U., & NAKISA, R. S. (2000). German inflection: Single route or dual route? Cognitive Psychology, 41, 313-360.
39. HAMMOND, M. (1997). Optimality theory of prosody. In D. Archangeli & L. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality theory (pp. 33-58). Oxford: Blackwell.
40. HAMMOND, M. (1999). The phonology of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. HARE, M., & ELMAN. J. (1995). Learning and morphological change. Cognition, 56, 61-98.
42. HARM, M. W., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, 491-528.
43. HUMMEL, J. E., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
44. JACOBSON, R., FANT, C., & HALLE, M. (1963). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. JARED, D. (1997). Spelling-sound consistency affects the naming of high-frequency words. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 505-529.
46. JARED, D., MCRAE, K., & SEIDENBERG, M. (1990). The basis of consistency effects in word-naming. Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 687-715.
47. KENSTOWICZ, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
48. KIM, J., MARCUS, G., PINKER, S., HOLLANDER, M., & COPPOLA, M. (1994). Sensitivity of children's inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language, 21, 179-209.
49. KIM, J., PINKER, S., PRINCE, A., & PRASADA, S. (1991). Why no mere mortal has ever flown out to center field. Cognitive Science, 15, 173-218.
50. LAHIRI, A., & MARSLEN-WILSON, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical forms: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-294.
51. MARCUS, G. F. (1998a). Can connectionism save constructivism? Cognition, 66, 153-182.
52. MARCUS, G. F. (1998b). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 243-282.
53. MARCUS, G. F. (1999a). Connectionism: With or without rules? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 168-170.
54. MARCUS, G. F. (1999b). Response: Do infants learn grammar with algebra or statistics? Science, 284, 433.
55. MARCUS, G. F. (1999c). Response: Technical comments - Rule learning by seven-month-old infants and neural networks. Science, 284, 977.
56. MARCUS, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. MARCUS, G. F., BRINKMANN, U., CLAHSEN, H., WIESE, R., & PINKER, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189-256.
58. MCCARTHY, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 207-263.
59. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & PLAUT, D. C. (1999). Does generalization in infant learning implicate abstract algebra-like rules? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 166-168.
60. NEGISHI, M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants and neural networks. Science, 284, 875.
61. PERFETTI, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. PINKER, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-535.
63. PINKER, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
64. PINKER, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
65. PINKER. S., & PRINCE, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
66. PLAUT, D. C. (1999). A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: Extension to sequential processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 543-568.
67. PLAUT, D. C., MCCLELLAND, J. L., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PATTERSON, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review. 103, 56-115.
68. PLUNKETT, K., & JUOLA, P. (1999). A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science. 23, 463-490.
69. PLUNKETT, K., & MARCHMAN, R. (1993). From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition, 48, 21-69.
70. PLUNKETT, K., & NAKISA, R. C. (1997). A connectionist model of the Arabic plural system. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 807-836.
71. PRASADA, S., & PINKER, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 1-56.
72. PRINCE, A., & SMOLENSKY, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar [(Tech. Rep. No. CU-CS-696-93). Boulder: University of Colorado, Department of Computer Science. (Tech. Rep. No, TR-2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science].
73. PRINCE. A., & SMOLENSKY, P. (1997). Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science, 275, 1604-1610.
74. RASTLE. K., & COLTHEART, M. (1999). Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 482-503.
75. ROSSON, M. (1985). The interaction of pronunciation rules and lexical representations in reading aloud. Memory & Cognition, 13, 90-99.
76. RUECKL, J., MIKOLINSKI, M., RAVEH, M., MINER, C., & MARS, F. (1997). Morphological priming, fragment completion, and connectionist networks. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 382-405.
77. RUMELHART, D. E., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & The PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 216-271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bransford Books.
78. RUSSEL, K. (1997). Optimality theory and morphology. In D. Archangeli & L. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality theory (pp. 102-133). Oxford: Blackwell.
79. SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units of orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 245-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599-1603.
81. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & ELMAN, J. (1999). Do infants learn grammar with algebra or statistics? Science, 284, 433.
82. SEIDENBERG, M. S., HASKELL, T., & MACDONALD, M. (1999, November). Constraints on plurals in compounds: Some implications of compounds research. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
83. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989a). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
84. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989b). More words but still no lexicon: Reply to Besner et al. (1990). Psychological Review, 97, 447-452.
85. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PLAUT, D. C. (1998). Evaluating word-reading models at the item level: Matching the grain of theory and data. Psychological Science, 9, 234-237.
86. SEIDENBERG, M. S., WATERS, G. S., BARNES, M. A., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 383-404.
87. SHASTRI, L. (1999). Infants learning algebraic rules. Science, 285, 1673-1674.
88. SMOLENSKY, P. (1995). Constituent structure and explanation in an integrated connectionist/symbolic cognitive architecture. In C. MacDonald & G. MacDonald (Eds.). Connectionism: Debates on psychological explanation, (Vol. 2, pp. 221-290). Oxford: Blackwell.
89. SMOLENSKY, P. (1999). Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science, 23, 589-613.
90. SPIELER, D., & BALOTA. D. (1997). Bringing computational models of word-naming down to the item level. Cognitive Science, 8, 411-416.
91. STEMBERGER, P. (1991). Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The addition bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 161-185.
92. STONE, G. O., VANHOY, M., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 337-359.
93. SURPRENANT, A. M., & GOLDSTEIN, L. (1998). The perception of speech gestures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 518-529.
94. TARABAN, R., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 608-631.
95. TESAR, B., & SMOLENSKY, P. (2000). Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
96. TREIMAN, R., MULLENNIX, J., BIJELJAC-BABIC, R., & RICHMOND-WELTY, D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107-136.
97. ULLMAN, M. (1999). Acceptability ratings of regular and irregular past-tense forms: Evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighborhood effects. Language & Cognitive Processes, 14, 15-67.
98. VAN ORDEN, G. C., & GOLDINGER, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1269-1291.
99. VAN ORDEN, G. C., PENNINGTON, B. F., & STONE, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.
100. ZIEGLER, J. C. & FERRAND, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 683-689.
101. ZIEGLER. J. C., MONTANT, M., & JACOBS, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 533-554.
102. ZORZI, M., HOUGHTON, G., & BUTTERWORTH, B. (1998). Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-route model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1131-1161.