How Many Mechanisms Are Needed to Analyze Speech? A Connectionist Simulation of Structural Rule Learning in Artificial Language Acquisition

Cognitive Science

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1243-1281

  Laakso, Aarre ^a   Calvo, Paco ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DEARBORN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Artificial grammar learning; Connectionism; Language acquisition; More than one mechanism hypothesis; Speech processing; Statistical learning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 80052424756     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01191.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Altmann, G. T. (2002). Learning and development in neural networks - the importance of prior experience. Cognition, 85(2), B43-B50.
2. Bishop, C. M. (1995). Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3. Boden, M., & Wiles, J. (2000). Context-free and context-sensitive dynamics in recurrent neural networks. Connection Science: Journal of Neural Computing, Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Research, 12(3-4), 197-210.
4. Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2006). How to hit Scylla without avoiding Charybdis: Comment on Perruchet, Tyler, Galland, and Peereman (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 314-321.
5. Chalup, S. K., & Blair, A. D. (2003). Incremental training of first order recurrent neural networks to predict a context-sensitive language. Neural Networks, 16(7), 955-972.
6. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
7. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Connectionist natural language processing: The state of the art. Cognitive Science, 23, 417-437.
8. Christiansen, M., & Curtin, S. (1999). Transfer of learning: Rule acquisition or statistical learning? Trends in Cognitive Science, 3(8), 289-290.
9. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179-211.
10. Endress, A. D., & Bonatti, L. L. (2007). Rapid learning of syllable classes from a perceptually continuous speech stream. Cognition, 105(2), 247-299.
11. Endress, A. D., & Mehler, J. (2009). Primitive computations in speech processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11), 2187-2209.
12. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.
13. Gerken, L. A., Wilson, R., & Lewis, W. (2005). Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories. Journal of Child Language, 32, 249-268.
14. Gómez, R. L., & Maye, J. (2005). The developmental trajectory of nonadjacent dependency learning. Infancy, 7(2), 183-206.
15. Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Daugherty, K. G. (1995). Default generalisation in connectionist networks. Language & Cognitive Processes, 10(6), 601-630.
16. Henson, R. N. A. (1998). Short-term memory for serial order: The start-end model. Cognitive Psychology, 36(2), 73-137.
17. Laakso, A., & Calvo, P. (2008). A connectionist simulation of structural rule learning in language acquisition. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 709-714). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
18. Marcus, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 77-80.
20. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (vol. 2: psychological and biological models). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation. Cognition, 96(2), 143-182.
22. Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2000). Innately constrained learning: Blending old and new approaches to language acquisition. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), BUCLD 24: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 1-21. Boston: Cascalla Press.
23. Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48(2), 127-162.
24. Onnis, L., Monaghan, P., Richmond, K., & Chater, N. (2005). Phonology impacts segmentation in online speech processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 225-237.
25. Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backward transitional probabilities. Cognition, 113, 244-247.
26. Peña, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002a). Signal-driven computations in speech processing. Science, 298(5593), 604-607.
27. Peña, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002b). Signal-driven computations in speech processing (online supplement on materials and methods). Science, 298(5593). Available at.
28. Perruchet, P., & Desaulty, S. (2008). A role for backward transitional probabilities in word segmentation? Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1299-1305.
29. Perruchet, P., Peereman, R., & Tyler, M. D. (2006). Do we need algebraic-like computations? A reply to Bonatti, Peña, Nespor, and Mehler (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 322-326.
30. Perruchet, P., & Tillmann, B. (2010). Exploiting multiple sources of information in learning an artificial language: Human data and modeling. Cognitive Science, 34(2), 255-285.
31. Perruchet, P., Tyler, M. D., Galland, N., & Peereman, R. (2004). Learning nonadjacent dependencies: No need for algebraic-like computations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 573-583.
32. Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model of word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(2), 246-263.
33. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456-463.
34. Plunkett, K., & Juola, P. (1999). A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 463-490.
35. Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45(1), 45-94.
36. Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. P. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 425-469.
37. Rodriguez, P. (2001). Simple recurrent networks learn context-free and context-sensitive languages by counting. Neural Computation, 13(9), 2093-2118.
38. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926-1928.
39. Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory & Language, 35(4), 606-621.
40. Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275(5306), 1599-1603.
41. Seidenberg, M. S., & Elman, J. L. (1999a). Do infants learn grammar with algebra or statistics? Science, 284, 435-436.
42. Seidenberg, M. S., & Elman, J. L. (1999b). Networks are not 'hidden rules.'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(8), 288-289.
43. Seidenberg, M. S., MacDonald, M. C., & Saffran, J. R. (2002). Does grammar start where statistics stop? Science, 298, 553-554.
44. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.