A Usage-Based Approach to Recursion in Sentence Processing

Most current approaches to linguistic structure suggest that language is recursive, that recursion is a fundamental property of grammar, and that independent performance constraints limit recursive abilities that would otherwise be infinite. This article presents a usage-based perspective on recursive sentence processing, in which recursion is construed as an acquired skill and in which limitations on the processing of recursive constructions stem from interactions between linguistic experience and intrinsic constraints on learning and processing. A connectionist model embodying this alternative theory is outlined, along with simulation results showing that the model is capable of constituent-like generalizations and that it can fit human data regarding the differential processing difficulty associated with center-embeddings in German and cross-dependencies in Dutch. Novel predictions are furthermore derived from the model and corroborated by the results of four behavioral experiments, suggesting that acquired recursive abilities are intrinsically bounded not only when processing complex recursive constructions, such as center-embedding and cross-dependency, but also during processing of the simpler, right- and left-recursive structures.

[1]  G. Miller Some psychological studies of grammar. , 1962 .

[2]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[3]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[4]  George A. Miller,et al.  Free Recall of Self-Embedded English Sentences , 1964, Inf. Control..

[5]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[6]  Walter S. Stolz,et al.  A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences , 1967 .

[7]  Lawrence E. Marks,et al.  Scaling of grammaticalness of self-embedded English sentences , 1968 .

[8]  P. A. Reich The Finiteness of Natural Language , 1969 .

[9]  Marilyn D. Wang The role of syntactic complexity as a determiner of comprehensibility , 1970 .

[10]  D. J. Foss,et al.  Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of surface structure reconsidered , 1970 .

[11]  Donald J. Foss,et al.  Some effects of memory limitation upon sentence comprehension and recall , 1970 .

[12]  J. Deese,et al.  Comprehensibility and Subject-Verb Relations in Complex Sentences. , 1971 .

[13]  Jean-Michel Peterfalvi,et al.  L'acceptabilité des phrases , 1971 .

[14]  J. Kimball Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[15]  A. Powell,et al.  Semantic Clues in Comprehension of Novel Sentences , 1973 .

[16]  M. Braine,et al.  Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences , 1974 .

[17]  I. M. Schlesinger,et al.  WHY A SENTENCE IN WHICH A SENTENCE IN WHICH A SENTENCE IS EMBEDDED IS EMBEDDED IS DIFFICULT , 1975 .

[18]  J. S. Evans,et al.  Understanding sentences with relative clauses , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[19]  D Burns,et al.  Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language , 1979 .

[21]  David Dillon,et al.  Language learning , 2006, Language Teaching.

[22]  Bryan J. Hubbell,et al.  On memory limitations in natural language processing , 1982 .

[23]  F P Roth,et al.  Accelerating language learning in young children , 1984, Journal of Child Language.

[24]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language , 1985 .

[25]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch , 1986 .

[26]  S Dickinson Recursion in Development: Support for a Biological Model of Language , 1987, Language and speech.

[27]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automation perspective on the psycholinguistic results , 1990 .

[28]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing , 1990 .

[29]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, and Grammatical Structure , 1991, Mach. Learn..

[31]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[32]  Michael L. Hoover,et al.  Sentence processing strategies in Spanish and English , 1992 .

[33]  J. Elman Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small , 1993, Cognition.

[34]  Robert F. Hadley Systematicity in Connectionist Language Learning , 1994 .

[35]  Morten H. Christiansen Innite Languages, Finite Minds Connectionism, Learning and Linguistic Structure , 1994 .

[36]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Generalization and connectionist language learning , 1994 .

[37]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[38]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  The handbook of brain theory and neural networks , 1995, A Bradford book.

[39]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb Argument Structure in Parsing and Interpretation: Evidence from wh-Questions , 1995 .

[40]  Dianne Bradley,et al.  The Effect of -ga Sequences on Processing Japanese Multiply Center-Embedded Sentences , 1996, PACLIC.

[41]  Paul Hagstrom,et al.  Differences Between Korean and Japanese Processing Overload , 1997 .

[42]  Julie E. Boland The Relationship Between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Comprehension. , 1997 .

[43]  E. Dąbrowska The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists , 1997 .

[44]  G. Marcus Rethinking Eliminative Connectionism , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[46]  J. Zwart The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[47]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Learning to Segment Speech Using Multiple Cues: A Connectionist Model , 1998 .

[48]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[49]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The nite connectivity of linguistic structure , 1999 .

[50]  E. Gibson,et al.  Memory Limitations and Structural Forgetting: The Perception of Complex Ungrammatical Sentences as Grammatical , 1999 .

[51]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: extension to sequential processing , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[52]  Wilhelm Freiherr von Humboldt,et al.  On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species , 2001 .

[53]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Integrating Distributional, Prosodic and Phonological Information in a Connectionist Model of Language Acquisition , 2001 .

[54]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production , 2002 .

[55]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002 .

[56]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[57]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Reassessing Working Memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996) , 2002 .

[58]  Nick Chater,et al.  Constituency and recursion in language , 2003 .

[59]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Phonological and Distributional Cues in Syntax Acquisition: Scaling up the Connectionist Approach to Multiple-Cue Integration - eScholarship , 2003 .

[60]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Graded state machines: The representation of temporal contingencies in simple recurrent networks , 1991, Machine Learning.

[61]  D. Plaut,et al.  Doing without schema hierarchies: a recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. , 2004, Psychological review.

[62]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[63]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Graded State Machines: The Representation of Temporal Contingencies in Simple Recurrent Networks , 2005, Machine Learning.

[64]  Matthew M Botvinick,et al.  Short-term memory for serial order: a recurrent neural network model. , 2006, Psychological review.

[65]  Alaa A. Kharbouch,et al.  Three models for the description of language , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[66]  Cedric Boeckx,et al.  Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims , 2006 .

[67]  Denise Brandão de Oliveira e Britto,et al.  The faculty of language , 2007 .

[68]  Fred Karlsson,et al.  Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses , 2007 .

[69]  Kara D. Federmeier Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[70]  M. Pickering,et al.  Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[71]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[72]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Language as shaped by the brain. , 2008, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[73]  Y. Niv,et al.  Dialogues on prediction errors , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[74]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Large-Scale Modeling of Wordform Learning and Representation , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[75]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[76]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Biological Foundations and Origin of Syntax , 2009 .

[77]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax , 2009 .

[78]  Scott P. Johnson Neoconstructivism: The New Science of Cognitive Development , 2009 .

[79]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Connectionist Explorations of Multiple-Cue Integration in Syntax Acquisition , 2009 .

[80]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Processing grammatical and ungrammatical center embeddings in English and German: A computational model , 2009 .

[81]  S. Levinson,et al.  The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.