Is Regularization Uniform across Linguistic Levels? Comparing Learning and Production of Unconditioned Probabilistic Variation in Morphology and Word Order

IF 1.5 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Learning and Development Pub Date : 2021-02-19 DOI:10.1080/15475441.2021.1876697
Carmen Saldana, Kenny Smith, S. Kirby, J. Culbertson
{"title":"Is Regularization Uniform across Linguistic Levels? Comparing Learning and Production of Unconditioned Probabilistic Variation in Morphology and Word Order","authors":"Carmen Saldana, Kenny Smith, S. Kirby, J. Culbertson","doi":"10.1080/15475441.2021.1876697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Languages exhibit variation at all linguistic levels, from phonology, to the lexicon, to syntax. Importantly, that variation tends to be (at least partially) conditioned on some aspect of the social or linguistic context. When variation is unconditioned, language learners regularize it – removing some or all variants, or conditioning variant use on context. Previous studies using artificial language learning experiments have documented regularizing behavior in the learning of lexical, morphological, and syntactic variation. These studies implicitly assume that regularization reflects uniform mechanisms and processes across linguistic levels. However, studies on natural language learning and pidgin/creole formation suggest that morphological and syntactic variation may be treated differently. In particular, there is evidence that morphological variation may be more susceptible to regularization. Here we provide the first systematic comparison of the strength of regularization across these two linguistic levels. In line with previous studies, we find that the presence of a favored variant can induce different degrees of regularization. However, when input languages are carefully matched – with comparable initial variability, and no variant-specific biases – regularization can be comparable across morphology and word order. This is the case regardless of whether the task is explicitly communicative. Overall, our findings suggest an overarching regularizing mechanism at work, with apparent differences among levels likely due to differences in inherent complexity or variant-specific biases. Differences between production and encoding in our tasks further suggest this overarching mechanism is driven by production.","PeriodicalId":46642,"journal":{"name":"Language Learning and Development","volume":"298 1","pages":"158 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Learning and Development","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1876697","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Languages exhibit variation at all linguistic levels, from phonology, to the lexicon, to syntax. Importantly, that variation tends to be (at least partially) conditioned on some aspect of the social or linguistic context. When variation is unconditioned, language learners regularize it – removing some or all variants, or conditioning variant use on context. Previous studies using artificial language learning experiments have documented regularizing behavior in the learning of lexical, morphological, and syntactic variation. These studies implicitly assume that regularization reflects uniform mechanisms and processes across linguistic levels. However, studies on natural language learning and pidgin/creole formation suggest that morphological and syntactic variation may be treated differently. In particular, there is evidence that morphological variation may be more susceptible to regularization. Here we provide the first systematic comparison of the strength of regularization across these two linguistic levels. In line with previous studies, we find that the presence of a favored variant can induce different degrees of regularization. However, when input languages are carefully matched – with comparable initial variability, and no variant-specific biases – regularization can be comparable across morphology and word order. This is the case regardless of whether the task is explicitly communicative. Overall, our findings suggest an overarching regularizing mechanism at work, with apparent differences among levels likely due to differences in inherent complexity or variant-specific biases. Differences between production and encoding in our tasks further suggest this overarching mechanism is driven by production.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正则化在语言层次上是统一的吗?词法和词序的无条件概率变异的学习和产生比较
语言在各个语言层次上都表现出差异,从音韵、词汇到句法。重要的是,这种差异往往(至少部分地)取决于社会或语言环境的某些方面。当变异是无条件的,语言学习者将其规范化-去除部分或全部变异,或根据上下文限制变异的使用。先前使用人工语言学习实验的研究已经记录了正则化行为在词汇、形态和句法变化的学习中。这些研究隐含地假设正则化反映了跨语言层次的统一机制和过程。然而,对自然语言学习和皮钦语/克里奥尔语形成的研究表明,形态和句法的变化可能被区别对待。特别是,有证据表明形态变异可能更容易受到正则化的影响。在这里,我们首次系统地比较了这两个语言层次上的正则化强度。与先前的研究一致,我们发现一个有利变体的存在可以诱导不同程度的正则化。然而,当输入语言被仔细匹配时——具有可比的初始可变性,并且没有变体特定的偏差——正则化可以跨词法和词序进行比较。无论任务是否具有明确的交际性,情况都是如此。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,在工作中有一个总体的规则机制,由于内在复杂性或变异特异性偏差的差异,水平之间存在明显差异。在我们的任务中,生产和编码之间的差异进一步表明,这种首要机制是由生产驱动的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Acquisition of a rare variant: ne-realization in the negative utterances of French children and their caregivers Thematic Content, Not Number Matching, Drives Syntactic Bootstrapping An Online Survey of Picture Book Reading Practices with Children Between the Ages of 0 and 30 Months Semantic Cues Facilitate Structural Generalizations in Artificial Language Learning Associations Between Joint Attention, Supported Joint Engagement and Language in TD Children and Children with ASD: Potential Sources of Individual and Group Differences in Language Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1