What Complexity Differences Reveal About Domains in Language

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 111-131

  Heinz, Jeffrey ^a   Idsardi, William ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational complexity; Language learning; Phonology; Syntax

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHONETICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SHORT TERM MEMORY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; PHONETICS;

EID: 84872814087     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12000     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Angluin, D. (1988). Identifying languages from stochastic examples. Tech. Rep. 614, New Haven, CT: Yale University.
3. Applegate, R. B. (1972). Ineseño Chumash grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley: University of California.
4. Bach, E. (1975). Long vowels and stress in Kwakiutl. Texas Linguistic Forum, 2, 9-19.
5. Beckman, J. (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology, 14, 1-46.
6. Beesley, K., & Kartunnen, L. (2003). Finite state morphology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
7. Belta, C., Bicchi, A., Egerstedt, M., Frazzoli, E., Klavins, E., & Pappas, G. J. (2007). Symbolic planning and control of robot motion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 14, 61-71. Special issue on grand challenges for robotics.
8. Bergelson, E., & Idsardi, W. J. (2009). Structural biases in phonology: Infant and adult evidence from artificial language learning. In J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord, & G.-M. Rheiner (Eds.), BUCLD 33: Proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 85-96). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
9. Berwick, R. C., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G. J. L., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2011). Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 113-121.
10. Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 51-70.
11. Browman, C., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201-251.
12. Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2002). Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 83, B13-B23.
13. Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. (2007). "Ideal learning" of natural language: Positive results about learning from positive evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51, 135-163.
14. Chiosáin, M. N., & Padgett, J. (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In L. Lombardi (Ed.), Constraints and representations: Segmental phonology in optimality theory (pp. 118-156). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113-124. IT-2.
16. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton & Co., Printers.
17. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
18. Clements, G. N., & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225-252.
20. Cristiá, A., & Seidl, A. (2008). Phonological features in infants phonotactic learning: Evidence from artificial grammar learning. Language, Learning, and Development, 4, 203-227.
21. Durbin, R., Eddy, S. R., Krogh, A., & Mitchison, G. (1998). Biological sequence analysis: Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Edlefsen, M., Leeman, D., Myers, N., Smith, N., Visscher, M., & Wellcome, D. (2009). Deciding strictly local (SL) languages. In J. Breitenbucher (Ed.), Proceedings of the midstates conference for undergraduate research in computer science and mathematics (pp. 66-73). Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College.
23. Endress, A. D., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 348-353.
24. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429-492.
25. Finley, S. (2011). The privileged status of locality in consonant harmony. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 74-83.
26. Finley, S. (2012). Testing the limits of long-distance learning: Learning beyond the three-segment window. Cognitive Science, 36, 740-756.
27. Finley, S., & Badecker, W. (2009a). Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 423-437.
28. Finley, S., & Badecker, W. (2009b). Right-to-left biases for vowel harmony: Evidence from artificial grammar. In A. Shardl, M. Walkow, & M. Abdurrahman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th North East linguistic society annual meeting, vol. 1 (pp. 269-282). Amherst, MA: University of MA, Amherst GLSA.
29. Flemming, E. S. (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: UCLA.
30. Folia, V., Uddén, J., de Vries, M., Forkstam, C., & Petersson, K. M. (2010). Artificial language learning in adults and children. Language Learning, 60(Supplement 2), 188-220.
31. Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 101, 3728-3740.
32. Frank, R., & Satta, G. (1998). Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics, 24, 307-315.
33. Frisch, S., Pierrehumbert, J., & Broe, M. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 179-228.
34. Gafos, A. (1999). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.
35. Garcia, P., Vidal, E., & Oncina, J. (1990). Learning locally testable languages in the strict sense. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory, 325-338.
36. Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Published by Garland Press, New York, 1979.
37. Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178-186.
38. Graf, T. (2010). Comparing incomparable frameworks: A model theoretic approach to phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16: Article 10. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/10. Accessed December 5, 2012.
39. Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, 73-113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Greenberg, J., ed. (1978). Universals of human language: Volume 2, phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41. Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational cognitive modeling (pp. 59-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Grünwald, P. (2007). The minimum description length principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
44. Hansson, G. (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley: University of California.
45. Harrison, M. A. (1978). Introduction to formal language theory. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
46. Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 379-440.
47. Heinz, J. (2007). The inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California.
48. Heinz, J. (2009). On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology, 26, 303-351.
49. Heinz, J. (2010a). Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 623-661.
50. Heinz, J. (2010b). String extension learning. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 897-906). Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
51. Heinz, J. (2011a). Computational phonology part I: Foundations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 140-152.
52. Heinz, J. (2011b). Computational phonology part II: Grammars, learning, & the future. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 153-168.
53. Heinz, J. (2012). Culminativity times harmony equals unbounded stress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. MS. To appear in volume edited by Harry van der Hulst from the April 2010 StressTyp Workshop.
54. Heinz, J., Rawal, C., & Tanner, H. (2011). Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 58-64). Portland, Oregon, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
55. Heinz, J., & Rogers, J. (2010). Estimating strictly piecewise distributions. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 886-896). Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
56. Hopcroft, J., Motwani, R., & Ullman, J. (2001). Introduction to automata theory, languages, & computation. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
57. Horning, J. J. (1969). A study of grammatical inference. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
58. Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59. Johnson, C. D. (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
60. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
61. Kaplan, R., & Kay, M. (1994). Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20, 331-378.
62. Kaye, J. (1989). Phonology: A cognitive view. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
63. Keenan, E., & Stabler, E. (2004). Bare grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64. Keenan, E., & Stabler, E. (2009). Language variation and linguistic invariants. Lingua, 120, 2680-2685.
65. Kobele, G. (2006). Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California.
66. Koo, H., & Callahan, L. (2012). Tier-adjacency is not a necessary condition for learning phonotactic dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1425-1432.
67. Kornai, A. (2011). Probabilistic grammars and languages. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 20, 317-328.
68. Kracht, M. (2003). The mathematics of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
69. Lai, R. (2012). Domain Specificity in Learning Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
70. Lombardy, S., & Sakarovitch, J. (2008). The universal automaton. In J. Flum, E. Grädel, & T. Wilke (Eds.), Logic and automata, vol. 2 of Texts in Logic and Games (pp. 457-504). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
71. Kalish, M. L., Griffiths, T. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2007). Iterated learning: Intergenerational knowledge transmission reveals inductive biases. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 288-294.
72. Mairal, R., & Gil, J. (eds.) (2006). Linguistic universals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Markov, A. A. (1913). An example of a statistical study on the text of "Eugene Onegin", illustrating connecting observations into a chain. Annals of the Russian Imperial Academy of Science. x, no. 3, 1913.
74. McNaughton, R., & Papert, S. (1971). Counter-free automata. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
75. Mester, A. (1988). Studies in Tier structure. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
76. Moreton, E. (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology, 25, 83-127.
77. Ohala, J. J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrik, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior (pp. 178-203). Chicago: Chicago Ling. Soc.
78. Onishi, K. H., Chambers, K. E., & Fisher, C. (2003). Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 87, B69-B77.
79. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Regier, T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118, 306-338.
80. Petersson, K. M., Forkstam, C., & Ingvar, M. (2004). Artificial syntactic violations activate brocas region. Cognitive Science, 28, 383-407.
81. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Tech. Rep. 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
82. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
83. Pycha, A., Nowak, P., Shin, E., & Shosted, R. (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22 (pp. 423-435). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
84. Rawal, C., Tanner, H. G., & Heinz, J. (2011). (Sub)regular robotic languages. In IEEE Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, 321-326.
85. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855-863.
86. Reinert, G., Schbath, S., & Waterman, M. (2005). Statistics on words with applications to biological sequences. In M. Lothaire (Ed.), Applied combinatorics on words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
87. Roark, B., & Sproat, R. (2007). Computational approaches to morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
88. Rogers, J., Heinz, J., Bailey, G., Edlefsen, M., Visscher, M., Wellcome, D., & Wibel, S. (2010). On languages piecewise testable in the strict sense. In C. Ebert, G. Jäger, & J. Michaelis (Eds.), The Mathematics of Language, vol. 6149 of Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence (pp. 255-265). Berlin: Springer.
89. Rogers, J., Heinz, J., Fero, M., Hurst, J., Lambert, D., & Wibel, S. (to appear). Cognitive and sub-regular complexity. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Formal Grammar.
90. Rogers, J., & Pullum, G. (2011). Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20, 329-342.
91. Rose, S., & Walker, R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language, 80, 475-531.
92. Sadock, J. (1991). Autolexical syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93. Sapir, E., & Hojier, H. (1967). The phonology and morphology of the Navaho language. Berkeley, CA: University of California Publications 50.
94. Scott-Phillips, T. C., & Kirby, S. (2010). Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 411-417.
95. Seidl, A., & Buckley, E. (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development, 1, 289-316.
96. Shieber, S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333-343.
97. Simon, I. (1975). Piecewise testable events. In Automata Theory and Formal Languages, H. Barkhage (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 33 Springer, 214-222.
98. Staal, F. (1989). Rules without meaning: Ritual, mantras and the human sciences. New York: Peter Lang.
99. Stabler, E. P. (2009). Computational models of language universals. In C. Collins & S. Edelman, Language universals (pp. 200-223). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
100. Suzuki, K. (1998). A typological investigation of dissimilation. Doctoral dissertation, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
101. Tanner, H. G., Rawal, C., Fu, J., Piovesan, J. L., & Abdallah, C. T. (2012). Finite abstractions for hybrid systems with stable continuous dynamics. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, 22, 83-99.
102. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279-1285.
103. Turk-Browne, N. B., Scholl, B. J., Chun, M. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Neural evidence of statistical learning: Efficient detection of visual regularities without awareness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1934-1945.
104. Walker, R. (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments, & opacity effects. Doctoral dissertation, Santa Cruz: University of California.
105. Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 30, 945-982.