Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Current Results
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Psycho-computational modelling of the mental lexicon

Profile image of vito pirrellivito pirrelli

2020, De Gruyter eBooks

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440577-002
visibility

…

description

60 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Over the last decades, a growing body of evidence on the mechanisms governing lexical storage, access, acquisition and processing has questioned traditional models of language architecture and word usage based on the hypothesis of a direct correspondence between modular components of grammar competence (lexicon vs. rules), processing correlates (memory vs. computation) and neuro-anatomical localizations (prefrontal vs. temporo-parietal perisylvian areas of the left hemisphere). In the present chapter, we explore the empirical and theoretical consequences of a distributed, integrative model of the mental lexicon, whereby words are seen as emergent properties of the functional interaction between basic, language-independent processing principles and the language-specific nature and organization of the input. From this perspective, language learning appears to be inextricably related to the way language is processed and internalized by the speakers, and key to an interdisciplinary understanding of such a way, in line with Tomaso Poggio's suggestion that the development of a cognitive skill is causally and ontogenetically prior to its execution (and sits "on top of it"). In particular, we discuss conditions, potential and prospects of the epistemological continuity between psycholinguistic and computational modelling of word learning, and illustrate the yet largely untapped potential of their integration. We use David Marr's hierarchy to clarify the complementarity of the two viewpoints. Psycholinguistic models are informative about how speakers learn to use language (interfacing Marr's levels 1 and 2). When we move from the psycholinguistic analysis of the functional operations involved in language learning to an algorithmic description of how they are computed, computer simulations can help us explore the relation between speakers' behavior and general learning principles in more detail. In the end, psycho-computational

Related papers

Proceedings of the First Workshop on Psycho-computational Models of Human Language Acquisition
Mari Fujimoto

We present a model and an experimental platform of a bootstrapping approach to statistical induction of natural language properties that is constraint based with voting components. The system is incremental and unsupervised. In the following discussion we focus on the components for morphological induction. We show that the much harder problem of incremental unsupervised morphological induction can outperform comparable all-at-once algorithms with respect to precision. We discuss how we use such systems to identify cues for induction in a cross-level architecture.

View PDFchevron_right
Computational models of psycholinguistics
Morten H. Christiansen

2008

Instead going straight into dealing with specific approaches, issues, and domains of computational cognitive modeling, it would be more appropriate to first take some time to explore a few general questions that lie at the very core of cognitive science and computational cognitive modeling. What is computational cognitive modeling? What exactly can it contribute to cognitive science? What has it contributed thus far? Where is it going? Answering such questions may sound overly defensive to the insiders of computational cognitive modeling, and may even seem so to some other cognitive scientists, but they are very much needed in a volume like this-because they lie at the very foundation of this field. Many insiders and outsiders alike would like to take a balanced and rational look at these questions, without indulging in excessive cheer-leading, which, as one would expect, happens sometimes amongst computational modeling enthusiasts. However, given the large number of issues involved and the complexity of these issues, only a cursory discussion is possible in this introductory chapter. One may thus view this chapter as a set of pointers to the existing literature, rather than a full-scale discussion. 1 1 What is Computational Cognitive Modeling? Research in computational cognitive modeling, or simply computational psychology, explores the essence of cognition (broadly defined, including motivation, emotion, perception, and so on) and various cognitive functionalities through developing detailed, process-based understanding by specifying corresponding computational models (in a broad sense) of representations, mechanisms, and processes. It embodies descriptions of cognition in computer algorithms and programs, based on computer science (Turing 1950). That is, it imputes computational processes (in a broad sense) onto cognitive functions, and thereby it produces runnable computational models. Detailed simulations are then conducted based on the computational models (see, e.g., Newell 1990, Rumelhart et al 1986, Sun 2002). Right from the beginning of the formal establishment of cognitive science around late 1970's, computational modeling has been a mainstay of cognitive science. 1 In general, models in cognitive science may be roughly categorized into computational, mathematical, or verbal-conceptual models (see, e.g., Bechtel and Graham 1998). Computational models (broadly defined) present process details using algorithmic descriptions. Mathematical models presents relationships between variables using mathematical equations. Verbal-conceptual models describe entities, relations, and processes in rather informal natural languages. Each model, regardless of its genre, might as well be viewed as a theory of whatever phenomena it purports to capture (as argued extensively before by, for example, Newell 1990, Sun 2005). 1 The roots of cognitive science can, of course, be traced back to much earlier times. For example, Newell and Simon's early work in the 60's and 70's has been seminal (see, e.g., Newell and Simon 1976). The work of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960) has also been highly influential. See the chapter by Boden in this volume for a more complete historical perspective (see also Boden 2006).

View PDFchevron_right
Computational models of word learning
Gert Westermann

Early Word Learning, 2017

Computational models are a means to develop explanations for the mechanisms underlying human behavior and behavioral change. Specifically, one type of computational models, artificial neural networks, has been used widely in modeling children's language and cognitive development. These models can learn from their experience with an environment and are sensitive to the environment's statistical structure, making them ideally suited to investigating how statistical learning can account for aspects of word learning across all levels, from the earliest phoneme acquisition to the development of the bilingual lexicon. Here we first describe the general principles underlying artificial neural network models with a goal of making them accessible to readers without experience with computational modeling. We then review the most common model architectures that have been used in simulating children's word learning in the broad context established in the other chapters of this volume. Finally, we review a number of specific models of word learning and discuss their contributions to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying early word learning, and the factors that shape this process in infants and toddlers.

View PDFchevron_right
New beginnings and happy endings: psychological plausibility in computational models of language acquisition
Luca Onnis, Morten H. Christiansen

2005

Abstract Language acquisition may be one of the most difficult tasks that children face during development. They have to segment words from fluent speech, figure out the meanings of these words, and discover the syntactic constraints for joining them together into meaningful sentences. Over the past couple of decades computational modeling has emerged as a new paradigm for gaining insights into the mechanisms by which children may accomplish these feats.

View PDFchevron_right
How Parts of Speech are Learned? A Lexical-driven or a Structural-driven Model
Parvaneh Khosravizadeh, Roya Pashmforoosh

"The paper investigates the possible facilitative approaches to parts of speech learning and the ways of interpreting them as functional categories rather than merely syntactic units. The paper concludes with the emphasis on the interactive model of contextualization of the lexical categories and the intentional commitment of grammatical items to memory."

View PDFchevron_right
How parts of speech are learned? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences
Parvaneh Khosravizadeh

Elsevier Ltd- Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012

The paper investigates the possible facilitative approaches to parts of speech learning and the ways of interpreting them as functional categories rather than merely syntactic units. Participants in this study were 38 students of General English Course at Sharif University of Technology. They received a treatment in a way that the comparison group was given a text, word forms chart, and pattern practice exercises and the control group was deprived of receiving a text. The paper concludes with the emphasis on the interactive model of contextualization of the lexical categories and the intentional commitment of grammatical items to memory.

View PDFchevron_right
A Model for Neurolinguistics
Harry Whitaker

1970

Abstract: Noting that linguistics and the neurological sciences have developed independently, this paper presents a coordinated approach to man's understanding of language, cognition, and mind. A neurological model is developed following a discussion of the rationale of such an approach. Chapters include:(1) the relation of neurological evidence to models of language,(2) a schematic model of language,(3) functional anatomy of the central language system,(4) functional anatomy of the peripheral language modalities, ...

View PDFchevron_right
The illusion of language acquisition
William O'Grady
View PDFchevron_right
The Lexical Learning Hypothesis
Sonja Eisenbeiss
View PDFchevron_right
A Computational Model of Language Acquisition: the Emergence of Words
Roger K Moore

Fundamenta Informaticae

In this paper, we discuss a computational model that is able to detect and build word-like representations on the basis of sensory input. The model is designed and tested with a further aim to investigate how infants may learn to communicate by means of spoken language. The computational model makes use of a memory, a perception module, and the concept of 'learning drive'. Learning takes place within a communicative loop between a 'caregiver' and the 'learner'. Experiments carried out on three European languages with different genetic background (Finnish, Swedish, and Dutch) show that a robust word representation can be learned in using less than 100 acoustic tokens (examples) of that word. The model is inspired by the memory structure that is assumed functional for human cognitive processing.

View PDFchevron_right

References (184)

  1. Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf. 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in Grammar, 54-82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Acquaviva, Paolo, Alessandro Lenci, Carita Paradis & Ida Raffaelli. 2020. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: a cross- disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon, 354-404. De Gruyter.
  3. Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89 (3). 429-464.
  4. Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78 (4). 684-709.
  5. Alvargonzález, David. 2011. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4). 387-403.
  6. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology.Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
  7. Arnold, Denis, Fabian Tomaschek, Konstantin Sering, Florence Lopez & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Words from spontaneous conversational speech can be recognized with human- like accuracy by an error-driven learning algorithm that discriminates between meanings straight from smart acoustic features, bypassing the phoneme as recognition unit. PLoS ONE 12 (4) e0174623. 1-16.
  8. Psycho-computational modelling of the mental lexicon
  9. Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
  10. Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
  11. Arppe, Antti, Peter Hendrix, Petar Milin, R. Harald Baayen, Tino Sering & Cyrus Shaoul. 2015. ndl: Naive Discriminative Learning. R package. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project. org/package=ndl
  12. Baayen R. Harald (2007). Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. In Gonia Jarema & Gary Libben (eds.), The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives, 81-104. Elsevier.
  13. Baayen, R. Harald, Laurie B. Feldman & Robert Schreuder 2006. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (2). 290-313.
  14. Baayen, R. Harald, Petar Milin, Dušica Filipović Đurđević, Peter Hendrix, Marco Marelli. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118 (3). 438-481.
  15. Baayen, R. Harald, Petar Milin & Michael Ramscar. 2016. Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology 30 (11). 1174-1220.
  16. Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  17. Baayen, R. Harald, Tino Sering, Cyrus Shaoul & Petar Milin. 2017. Language comprehension as a multiple label classification problem. In Marco Grzegorczyk & Giacomo Ceoldo (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd International Workshop on Statistical Modelling (IWSM), 21-34. Groningen, University of Groningen.
  18. Baayen, R. Harald, Cyrus Shaoul, Jon Willits & Michael Ramscar. 2016. Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discriminative learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31 (1). 106-128.
  19. Baayen, R. Harald, Lee H. Wurm & Joanna Aycock. 2007. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words. A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2. 419-463.
  20. Baddeley Alan D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  21. Balling, Laura W. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (7-8). 1159-1190.
  22. Balling, Laura W. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition 125(1). 80-106.
  23. Becker, Curtis A. 1980. Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory and Cognition 8. 493-512.
  24. Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language learning 59. 1-26.
  25. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. SUNY Press.
  26. Berg, Thomas. 2020. Morphological slips of the tongue. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: a cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon, 635-679. De Gruyter.
  27. Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531-573.
  28. Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. Blevins, James P., Farrell Ackerman, Robert Malouf & Michael Ramscar. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 271-302. John Benjamins.
  30. Blevins, James P., Petar Milin & Michael Ramscar. 2017. The Zipfian paradigm cell filling problem. In Ferenc Kiefer, James P. Blevins & Huba Bartos (eds.), Perspectives on Morphological Organization: Data and Analyses, 139-158. Leiden: Brill.
  31. Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23. 399-418.
  32. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, Henry Holt.
  33. Blough, Donald S. 1975. Steady state data and a quantitative model of operant generalization and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1 (1). 3.
  34. Bompolas Stavros, Marcello Ferro, Claudia Marzi, Franco Alberto Cardillo & Vito Pirrelli. 2017. For a performance-oriented notion of regularity in inflection: the case of Modern Greek conjugation. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics 3 (1). 77-92.
  35. Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
  36. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Predicting the dative alternation. Proceeding of the (KNAW) Academy Colloquium: Cognitive foundations of interpretation, Amsterdam.
  37. Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Multiple Correspondence, Lingua 104. 79-109.
  38. Bybee Joan. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5). 425-455.
  39. Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Thomas Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language, 107-132. John Benjamins.
  40. Bybee, Joan & Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
  41. Bybee, Joan & James L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22 (2-4). 381-410.
  42. Caramazza, Alfonso, Alessandro Laudanna & Cristina Romani. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297-332.
  43. Cardillo, Franco Alberto, Marcello Ferro, Claudia Marzi & Vito Pirrelli. 2018. Deep learning of inflection and the Cell-filling problem. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics 4(1). 57-75.
  44. Chen, Qi & Daniel Mirman. 2012. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological review 119 (2). 417-430.
  45. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row. Clark, Alexander, Chris Fox & Shalom Lapping (eds.). 2010. The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Wiley Blackwell.
  46. Clark, Eve V. 1987. The Principle of Contrast: A Constraint on Language Acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 1-33. Lawrence Elbaum.
  47. Clark, Eve V. 1990. On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of child language 17 (2). 417-431.
  48. Corbett, Greville G. & Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113-142.
  49. Dahan, Delphine & James S. Magnuson. 2006. Spoken-word recognition. In Matthew J. Traxler& Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 249-283. Elsevier.
  50. Danks, David. 2003. Equilibria of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47 (2). 109-121.
  51. Davis, Colin J. 2010. The Spatial Coding Model of Visual Word Identification, Psychological Review 117 (3). 713-758.
  52. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  53. Divjak, Dagmar & Stephan T. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2 (1). 23-60.
  54. Ellis, Nick C. 2006a. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied linguistics 27 (1). 1-24.
  55. Ellis, Nick C. 2006b. Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied linguistics 27 (2). 164-194.
  56. Ellis, Nick C. & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2006. Language energence: Implications for applied linguistics -Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27. 558-589.
  57. Elman, Jeffrey L. 2009. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive science 33 (4). 547-582.
  58. Fábregas, Antonio and Martina Penke. 2020. Word storage and computation. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: a cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon, 455-505. De Gruyter.
  59. Ferro, Marcello, Claudia Marzi & Vito Pirrelli. 2011. A Self-Organizing Model of Word Storage and Processing: Implications for Morphology Learning. Lingue e Linguaggio X (2). 209-226.
  60. Ferro, Marcello, Claudia Marzi & Vito Pirrelli. 2018. Discriminative word learning is sensitive to inflectional entropy. Lingue e Linguaggio XVII (2). 307-327.
  61. Finkel, Raphael & Gregory Stump. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17. 39-75.
  62. Gaskell, M. Gareth & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2002. Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive psychology 45 (2). 220-266.
  63. Geeraert, Kristina, John Newman & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Idiom variation: Experimental data and a blueprint of a computational model. In Morten Christiansen & Inbal Arnon (eds.), More than Words: The Role of Multiword Sequences in Language Learning and Use. Special issue of Topics in Cognitive Science 9 (3). 653-669.
  64. Ghirlanda, Stefano (2005) Retrospective revaluation as simple associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31(1), 107.
  65. Ghirlanda, Stefano, Johan Lind & Magnus Enquist. 2017. Memory for stimulus sequences: a divide between humans and other animals? Royal Society Open Science 4. 161011. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.161011
  66. Giraudo, Hélène & Jonathan Grainger. 2000. Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 15 (4/5). 421-444.
  67. Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. the nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
  68. Goldrick, Matthew, Jocelyn R. Folk & Brenda Rapp. 2010. Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language 62 (2). 113-134.
  69. Goldrick, Matthew & Brenda Rapp. 2007. Lexical and post-lexical phonological representations in spoken production. Cognition 102 (2). 219-260.
  70. Grainger, Jonathan, Pascale Colé & Juan Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370-384.
  71. Halle, Morris (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 451-464.
  72. Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting Paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (7). 342-348.
  73. Hendrix, Peter. 2015. Experimental explorations of a discrimination learning approach to language processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tuebingen.
  74. Hendrix, Peter, Patrick Bolger & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Distinct ERP signatures of word frequency, phrase frequency, and prototypicality in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43 (1). 128.
  75. Henson, Richard N. 1998. Short-term memory for serial order: The start-end model, Cognitive Psychology 36. 73-137.
  76. Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210-231.
  77. Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639-671.
  78. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.
  79. James, William. 1890. Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
  80. James, William. 1907. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.
  81. James, William. 1909. The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to "Pragmatism". New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.
  82. Johnson, Keith. 2004. Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium, 29-54. Tokyo, Japan: The National International Institute for Japanese Language.
  83. Kalman, Rudolph E. 1960. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of basic Engineering 82 (1). 35-45.
  84. Karttunen, Lauri. 2003. Computing with realizational morphology. In Alexander Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Proceedings of CICLing 2003, 203-214. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  85. Kullback, Solomon. 1987. Letter to the editor: The Kullback-Leibler distance. The American Statistician 41 (4), 340-341.
  86. Kuperman, Victor, Raymond Bertram & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language 62(2). 83-97.
  87. Kuperman, Victor, Robert Schreuder, Raymond Bertram & R. Harald Baayen. 2009. Reading of multimorphemic Dutch compounds: towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HPP 35. 876-895.
  88. Landauer, Thomas K., Peter W. Foltz & Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25 (2-3). 259-284.
  89. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  90. Lensink, S.E., Verhagen, A., Schiller, N. & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Keeping them apart: on using a discriminative approach to study the nature and processing of multi-word units. Manuscript, University of Leiden.
  91. Levelt, Willem J., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1-38.
  92. Libben Gary. 2005. Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 50. 267-283.
  93. Libben, Gary. 2016. The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Culture Cognitive Science 1. 49-55.
  94. Lieber, Rochelle 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. PhD thesis. Cambridge, MIT.
  95. Linke, Maja, Franziska Bröker, Michael Ramscar & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Are baboons learning "orthographic" representations? Probably not. PloS one 12 (8). e0183876.
  96. Luce, Paul A. 1986. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 39. 155-158.
  97. Luce, Paul A. & David B. Pisoni. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1-36.
  98. MacKay, Donald G. 1982. The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review 89. 483-506.
  99. MacWhinney, Brian (ed.). 1999. The emergence of language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MacWhinney, Brian & William O'Grady. (eds.). 2015. The Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley Blackwell.
  100. Manning, Christopher D. & Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT press.
  101. Marangolo, Paola & Costanza Papagno. 2020. Neuroscientific protocols for exploring the mental lexicon. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: a cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon, 127-166. De Gruyter.
  102. Marelli, Marco & Marco Baroni. 2015. Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological review 122 (3). 485-515.
  103. Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
  104. Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1984. Function and process in spoken word recognition: A tutorial overview. In Herman Bouma & Don G. Bouwhuis (eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes, 125-150. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  105. Marslen-Wilson, Wiliam D. & Alan Welsh. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10. 29-63.
  106. Marsolek, Chad J. 2008. What antipriming reveals about priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (5). 176-181.
  107. Marzi Claudia, James P. Blevins, Geert Booij & Vito Pirrelli. 2020. Inflection at the morphology- syntax interface. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word Knowledge and Word Usage: a Cross-disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon, 228-294. De Gruyter.
  108. Marzi, Claudia, Marcello Ferro, Franco Alberto Cardillo & Vito Pirrelli. 2016. Effects of frequency and regularity in an integrative model of word storage and processing. Italian Journal of Linguistics 28 (1). 79-114.
  109. Marzi, Claudia, Marcello Ferro, Ouafae Nahli, Patrizia Belik, Stavros Bompolas & Vito Pirrelli. 2018. Evaluating Inflectional Complexity Crosslinguistically: a Processing Perspective. In Proceedings of 11th LREC 2018, Miyazaki, Japan. 3860-3866.
  110. Marzi, Claudia, Marcello Ferro & Vito Pirrelli. 2014. Morphological structure through lexical parsability. Lingue e Linguaggio XIII (2). 263-290.
  111. Marzi, Claudia, Marcello Ferro & Vito Pirrelli. 2019. A processing-oriented investigation of inflectional complexity. Frontiers in Communication 4. 48, 1-23. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00048
  112. Marzi, Claudia & Vito Pirrelli. 2015. A neuro-Computational Approach to Understanding the Mental Lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science 16 (4). 491-533.
  113. Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.
  114. Matthews Peter H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  115. McClelland, James L. & Elman, Jeffrey L. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18. 1-86.
  116. Milin, Petar, Dagmar Divjak & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. A learning perspective on individual differences in skilled reading: Exploring and exploiting orthographic and semantic discrimination cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43 (11). 1730-1751.
  117. Milin, Petar, Laurie B. Feldman, Michael Ramscar, Peter Hendrix, R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Discrimination in lexical decision. PloS one 12 (2). e0171935.
  118. Milin, Petar, Dušica Filipović Đurđević & Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2009. The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language 60 (1). 50-64.
  119. Milin, Petar, Victor Kuperman, Aleksandar Kostić & R. Harald Baayen. 2009. Words and paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 214-252. Oxford University Press.
  120. Morton, John. 1969. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological review 76 (2). 165-178.
  121. Morton, John. 1970. A functional model for memory. Models of human memory. 203-254.
  122. Morton, John. 1979. Facilitation in word recognition: Experiments causing change in the logogen model. In Processing of visible language, Springer, 259-268.
  123. Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Aleksandar Kostić, & R. Harald Baayen. 2004. Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94 (1). 1-18.
  124. Norris, Dennis. 1994. Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52. 189-234.
  125. Norris, Dennis. 2006. The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological review 113 (2). 327.
  126. Norris, Dennis & James M. McQueen. 2008. Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological review 115 (2). 357-395.
  127. Norris, Dennis, James M. McQueen & Anne Cutler. 1995. Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21 (5). 1209-1228.
  128. Osgood, Charles E. 1946. Meaningful similarity and interference in learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 36 (4). 277-301.
  129. Osgood, Charles E. 1949. The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review 56 (3). 132-143.
  130. Osgood, Charles E. 1966. Meaning cannot be r m ?. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5 (4). 402-407.
  131. Pham, Hien & R. Harald Baayen. 2015. Vietnamese compounds show an anti-frequency effect in visual lexical decision. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 1077-1095.
  132. Pinker, Steven & Alan Prince. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 29, 195-247.
  133. Pinker, Steven & Alan Prince. 1994. Regular, and Irregular Morphology, and the Psychological Status of Rules of Grammar. In Susan D. Lima, Roberta Corrigan & Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 321-351. John Benjamins.
  134. Pinker, Stevan & Michael T. Ullman. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science 6. 456-463.
  135. Pirrelli, Vito. 2018. Morphological Theory And Computational Linguistics. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, 573-593. Oxford University Press.
  136. Pirrelli, Vito & Marco Battista. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Italian Journal of Linguistics 12. 307-380.
  137. Pirrelli, Vito, Marcello Ferro & Claudia Marzi. 2015. Computational complexity of abstractive morphology. In Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville Corbett (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 141-166. Oxford University Press.
  138. Pirrelli, Vito & François Yvon. 1999. The hidden dimension: a paradigmatic view of data-driven NLP. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 11 (3). 391-408.
  139. Plaut, David C. & Laura M. Gonnerman. 2000. Are nonsemantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes 15 (4/5). 445-485.
  140. Poggio, Tomaso. 2010. Afterword. Marr's Vision and Computational Neuroscience. In David Marr, Vision, 362-367. The MIT Press.
  141. Poggio, Tomaso. 2012. The levels of understanding framework, revised. Perception, 41(9), 1017-1023.
  142. Price, Cathy J. 2012. A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage 62 (2). 816-847.
  143. Price, Cathy J. 2017. The evolution of cognitive models: From neuropsychology to neuroimaging and back. Cortex 107. 37-49.
  144. Quine, Willard V.O. (1960) Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  145. Ramscar, Michael, Melody Dye & Joseph Klein. 2013. Children value informativity over logic in word learning. Psychological Science 24 (6). 1017-1023.
  146. Ramscar, Michael, Melody Dye & Stewart M. McCauley. 2013. Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language 89 (4). 760-793.
  147. Ramscar, Michael & Nicole Gitcho. 2007. Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11 (7). 274-279.
  148. Ramscar, Michael, Peter Hendrix, Cyrus Shaoul, Petar Milin & R. Harald Baayen. 2014. The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in cognitive science 6 (1). 5-42.
  149. Ramscar, Michael, Ching C. Sun, Peter Hendrix & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. The Mismeasurement of Mind: Lifespan Changes in Paired Associate Test Scores Reflect The 'Cost' of Learning, Not Cognitive Decline. Psychological Science. 1171-1179.
  150. Ramscar, Michael & Daniel Yarlett. 2007. Linguistic Self-Correction in the Absence of Feedback: A New Approach to the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Cognitive Science 31 (6). 927-960.
  151. Ramscar, Michael, Daniel Yarlett, Melody Dye, Katie Denny & Kirsten Thorpe. 2010. The Effects of Feature-Label-Order and their Implications for Symbolic Learning. Cognitive Science 34 (6). 909-957.
  152. Rescorla, Robert A. 1988. Behavioral Studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Annual review of neuroscience 11 (1). 329-352.
  153. Rescorla, Robert A. & Allan R. Wagner. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory 2. 64-99.
  154. Rubenstein, Herbert, Lonnie Garfield & Jane A. Millikan. 1970. Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 9 (5). 487-494.
  155. Rubenstein, Herbert, Spafford S. Lewis & Mollie A. Rubenstein. 1971. Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings. Journal of Memory and Language 10 (1). 57.
  156. Rueckl, Jay G. & Michal Raveh. 1999. The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain and Language 68. 110-117.
  157. Rumelhart David & James McClelland. 1986. On learning the past tense of English verbs. In David Rumelhart, James McClelland & PDP Research Group, Parallel distributed processing: Explanations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. I. 216-271. The MIT Press.
  158. Rumelhart David, James McClelland & PDP Research Group. 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explanations in the microstructure of cognition. Voll. 1 & 2. The MIT Press.
  159. Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
  160. Schmidtke, Daniel, Kazunaga Matsuki & Victor Kuperman. 2017. Surviving blind decomposition: a distributional analysis of the time-course of complex word recognition. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition 43(11). 1793-1820.
  161. Schreuder, Robert & R. Harald Baayen. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Laurie B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 131-56. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  162. Schultz, Wolfram. 1998. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of neurophysiology 80 (1). 1-27.
  163. Seidenberg, Mark S. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive science 23(4). 569-588.
  164. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. The MIT Press.
  165. Selfridge, Oliver G. 1959. Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D. V. Blake & A. M. Uttley (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation of Thought Processes, 511-529.
  166. Sering, Konstantin, Petar Milin & R. Harald Baayen. 2018. Language comprehension as a multiple label classification problem. Statistica Neerlandica 72 (3). 339-353.
  167. Shannon, Claude. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27. 379-423, 623-656.
  168. Shaoul, Cyrus & Chris Westbury. 2010. Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods 42 (2). 393-413.
  169. Skinner, Burrhus F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. Simon and Schuster.
  170. Skinner, Burrhus F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. Copley Publishing Group.
  171. Snodgrass, Joan G. & Robert Jarvella. 1972. Some linguistic determinants of word classification times. Pyschonomic Science 27 (4). 220-222.
  172. Spivey, Michael J, Ken McRae & Marc F. Joanisse. 2012. The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  173. Taft, Marcus. 1994. Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and cognitive processes 9 (3). 271-294.
  174. Taft, Marcus. 2004. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 57 (4). 745-765.
  175. Taft, Marcus & Kenneth I. Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 638-647.
  176. Tiedemann, Jörg. 2012. Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). 2214-2218. Istanbul, Turkey.
  177. Tolman, Edvard C. 1932. Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.
  178. Tolman, Edvard C. 1951. Behavior and psychological man: essays in motivation and learning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  179. Tremblay, Antoine & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and erp study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In David Wood (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication, 151-173. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  180. Tucker, Benjamin V., Michelle Sims & R. Harald Baayen. 2017. Opposing forces on acoustic duration. Manuscript, University of Alberta and University of Tübingen.
  181. Vulchanova, Mila, David Saldaña and Giosué Baggio. 2020. Word structure and word processing in developmental disorders. In Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: a cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon, 680-707. De Gruyter.
  182. Weitz, Marc, Konstantin Sering, David-Elias Künstle & Lennard Schneider. 2017. pyndl: Naive Discriminative Learning. Python3 package. Retrieved from https://github.com/quantling/ pyndl.
  183. Widrow, Bernard & Marcian E-Hoff. 1960. Adaptive switching circuits (No. TR-1553-1). Stanford University, CA Stanford Electronics labs.
  184. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Gertrude E. M. Anscombe (Trans.), Blackwell Publishing.

Related papers

Psycho-computational modelling of the mental lexicon A discriminative learning perspective
Harald Baayen

Word Knowledge and Word Usage. A Cross-Disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon, 2020

Pirrelli, V., C. Marzi, M. Ferro, F. A. Cardillo, R. H. Baayen, and P. Milin Over the last decades, a growing body of evidence on the mechanisms governing lexical storage, access, acquisition and processing has questioned traditional models of language architecture and word usage based on the hypothesis of a direct correspondence between modular components of grammar competence (lexicon vs. rules), processing correlates (memory vs. computation) and neuro-anatomical localizations (prefrontal vs. temporo-parietal perisylvian areas of the left hemisphere). In the present chapter, we explore the empirical and theoretical consequences of a distributed, integrative model of the mental lexicon, whereby words are seen as emergent properties of the functional interaction between basic, language-independent processing principles and the language specific nature and organization of the input. From this perspective, language learning appears to be inextricably related to the way language is processed and internalized by the speakers, and key to an interdisciplinary understanding of such a way, in line with Tomaso Poggio's suggestion that the development of a cognitive skill is causally and ontogenetically prior to its execution (and sits "on top of it"). In particular, we discuss conditions, potential and prospects of the epistemological continuity between psycholinguistic and computational modelling of word learning, and illustrate the yet largely untapped potential of their integration. We use David Marr's hierarchy to clarify the comple-mentarity of the two viewpoints. Psycholinguistic models are informative about how speakers learn to use language (interfacing Marr's levels 1 and 2). When we move from the psycholinguistic analysis of the functional operations involved in language learning to an algorithmic description of how they are computed, computer simulations can help us explore the relation between speakers' behavior and general learning principles in more detail. In the end, psycho-computational models can be instrumental to bridge Marr's levels 2 and 3, bringing us closer to understanding the nature of word knowledge in the brain.

View PDFchevron_right
Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition Proceedings of the Workshop
Janet Fodor

This workshop brings together scientists whose (at least one) line of investigation is to computationally model the process by which humans acquire various aspects of natural language. Progress in this agenda not only directly informs developmental psycholinguistic and linguistic research but will also have the long term benefit of informing applied computational linguistics in areas that involve the automated acquisition of knowledge from a human or human-computer linguistic environment. The scientific program consisted of two invited talks, one by Brian MacWhinney and another by Mark Steedman, and 10 paper presentations. We were especially pleased with the high quality of the submissions and would like to thank the authors for submitting their papers, as well as Mirella Lapata (ACL Workshop Committee Chair), Jason Eisner, Philipp Koehn (Publications Chairs) and Dragomir Radev (Local Arrangements Chair) who were extremely helpful (and patient) on more than one occasion. Abstract Sp...

View PDFchevron_right
UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition Permalink Publication Date
William Sakas
View PDFchevron_right
Psychocomputational linguistics
William Sakas

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Issues in Teaching Computational Linguistics - TeachCL '08, 2008

Computational modeling of human language processes is a small but growing subfield of computational linguistics. This paper describes a course that makes use of recent research in psychocomputational modeling as a framework to introduce a number of mainstream computational linguistics concepts to an audience of linguistics, cognitive science and computer science doctoral students. The emphasis on what I take to be the largely interdisciplinary nature of computational linguistics is particularly germane for the computer science students. Since 2002 the course has been taught three times under the auspices of the MA/PhD program in Linguistics at The City University of New York's Graduate Center. A brief description of some of the students' experiences after having taken the course is also provided.

View PDFchevron_right
Neurolinguistic Computational Models
Brian MacWhinney

Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language, 2008

It is tempting to think of the brain as functioning very much like a computer. Like the digital computer, the brain takes in data and outputs decisions and conclusions. However, unlike the computer, the brain does not store precise memories at specifi c locations. Instead, the brain reaches decisions through the dynamic interaction of diverse areas operating in functional neural circuits. The role of specifi c local areas in these functional neural circuits appears to be highly fl exible and dynamic. Recent work has begun to provide detailed accounts of both the overall circuits supporting language and the detailed computations provided in smaller neural areas. These accounts take the shape of both structured and emergent models. Just, M.A., & Varma, S. (2007). The organization of thinking: what functional brain imaging reveals about the neuroarchitecture of complex cognition. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience , 7, 153-191. This article compares three recent neurocomputational approaches that provide overall maps of high-level functional neural circuits for much of cognition. Miikkulainen , R. , Bednar , J.A. , Choe , Y. , & Sirosh , J. ( 2005 ) . Computational maps in the visual cortex . New York : Springer . This book shows how self-organizing feature maps can be used to describe many of the detailed results from the neuroscience of vision. Ullman , M. ( 2004 ) . Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model . Cognition , 92 , 231 -270 . An interesting, albeit speculative, application of a neurocomputational model to issues in second language learning.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Computer Science
  • Computational Linguistics
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Mental Lexicon
  • Reading Process
  • Discriminative Learning
  • connectionist models

    • Cited by

    What makes the past perfect and the future progressive? Experiential coordinates for a learnable, context-based model of tense and aspect
    Petar Milin

    Cognitive Linguistics, 2022

    We examined how language supports the expression of temporality within sentence boundaries in English, which has a rich inventory of grammatical means to express temporality. Using a computational model that mimics how humans learn from exposure we explored what the use of different tense and aspect (TA) combinations reveals about the interaction between our experience of time and the cognitive demands that talking about time puts on the language user. Our model was trained onn-grams extracted from the BNC to select the TA combination that fits the context best. It revealed the existence of two different sub-systems within the set of TA combinations, a “simplex” one that is supported lexically and is easy to learn, and a “complex” one that is supported contextually and is hard to learn. The finding that some TA combinations are essentially lexical in nature necessitates a rethink of tense and aspect as grammatical categories that form the axes of the temporal system. We argue that t...

    View PDFchevron_right
    A discriminative information-theoretical analysis of the regularity gradient in inflectional morphology
    vito pirrelli

    Morphology

    Over the last decades, several independent lines of research in morphology have questioned the hypothesis of a direct correspondence between sublexical units and their mental correlates. Word and paradigm models of morphology shifted the fundamental part-whole relation in an inflection system onto the relation between individual inflected word forms and inflectional paradigms. In turn, the use of artificial neural networks of densely interconnected parallel processing nodes for morphology learning marked a radical departure from a morpheme-based view of the mental lexicon. Lately, in computational models of Discriminative Learning, a network architecture has been combined with an uncertainty reducing mechanism that dispenses with the need for a one-to-one association between formal contrasts and meanings, leading to the dissolution of a discrete notion of the morpheme.The paper capitalises on these converging lines of development to offer a unifying information-theoretical, simulati...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved