Machine Meets Man: Evaluating the Psychological Reality of Corpus-based Probabilistic Models

Abstract Linguistic convention typically allows speakers several options. Evidence is accumulating that the various options are preferred in different contexts, yet the criteria governing the selection of the appropriate form are often far from obvious. Most researchers who attempt to discover the factors determining a preference rely on the linguistic analysis and statistical modeling of data extracted from large corpora. In this paper, we address the question of how to evaluate such models and explicitly compare the performance of a statistical model derived from a corpus with that of native speakers in selecting one of six Russian TRY verbs. Building on earlier work we trained a polytomous logistic regression model to predict verb choice given the sentential context. We compare the predictions the model makes for 60 unseen sentences to the choices adult native speakers make in those same sentences. We then look in more detail at the interplay of the contextual properties and model computationally how individual differences in assessing the importance of contextual properties may impact the linguistic knowledge of native speakers. Finally, we compare the probability the model assigns to encountering each of the six verbs in the 60 test sentences to the acceptability ratings the adult native speakers give to those sentences. We discuss the implications of our findings for both usage-based theory and empirical linguistic methodology.

[1]  E. Markman How children constrain the possible meanings of words. , 1987 .

[2]  Ewa Dabrowska,et al.  Individual differences in grammatical knowledge , 2015 .

[3]  Frank Keller,et al.  Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality , 2001 .

[4]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral profiles , 2006, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.

[5]  Antti Arppe,et al.  Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography : A study of synonymy , 2008 .

[6]  Dagmar Divjak On trying in Russian: a tentative network model for near(er)-synonyms , 2003 .

[7]  Jane Klavan,et al.  Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy , 2012 .

[8]  J. Firth,et al.  Papers in linguistics, 1934-1951 , 1957 .

[9]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[10]  Dagmar Divjak,et al.  Extracting prototypes from exemplars What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? , 2013 .

[11]  J. Elman,et al.  Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences , 2006, Cognition.

[12]  M. Studdert-Kennedy,et al.  Social Transmission Favours Linguistic Generalisation , 2000 .

[13]  G. Box Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. , 1979 .

[14]  René Dirven,et al.  Cognitive linguistics research , 1990 .

[15]  C. Mervis,et al.  Early object labels: the case for a developmental lexical principles framework , 1994, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  S. Morgenthaler Robustness in Statistics , 2001 .

[17]  Tore Nesset,et al.  Making choices in Russian: pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms , 2013 .

[18]  U. Neisser Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[19]  Stefan Thomas Gries,et al.  Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement , 2003 .

[20]  Antti Arppe Extracting exemplars and prototypes Antti Arppe , 2013 .

[21]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Gradience in Linguistic Data , 2005 .

[22]  Ewa Dabrowska Functional constraints, usage, and mental grammars: A study of speakers’ intuitions about questions with long-distance dependencies , 2013 .

[23]  Dirk Speelman,et al.  A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch , 2007 .

[24]  Frank E. Harrell,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2001 .

[25]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Predicting the dative alternation , 2007 .

[26]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  How to think straight about psychology, 3rd ed. , 1992 .

[27]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Early Word Learning , 1997 .

[28]  H. Theil On the Estimation of Relationships Involving Qualitative Variables , 1970, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  D. Ewa,et al.  Recycling utterances : A speaker ’ s guide to sentence processing , 2017 .

[30]  Zellig S. Harris,et al.  Distributional Structure , 1954 .

[31]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[32]  Vsevolod Kapatsinski,et al.  A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is , 2017 .

[33]  Dirk Speelman,et al.  Prosodic and syntactic-pragmatic mechanisms of grammatical variation: The impact of a postverbal constituent on the word order in Dutch clause final verb clusters , 2008 .

[34]  Dagmar Divjak,et al.  The Role of Lexical Frequency in the Acceptability of Syntactic Variants: Evidence From that-Clauses in Polish , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[35]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  Language is never, ever, ever, random , 2005 .

[36]  史尚明 Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications - State of the Art , 2008 .

[37]  Marily Ford,et al.  A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences , 1983 .

[38]  J. Bresnan Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic ? Experiments with the English dative alternation ∗ , 2006 .

[39]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Statistical classification and principles of human learning , 2011 .

[40]  Anette Rosenbach,et al.  What counts as evidence in linguistics , 2007 .

[41]  Anette Rosenbach,et al.  What counts as evidence in linguistics?: an introduction , 2004 .

[42]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Clusters in the mind?: Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian , 2008 .

[43]  K. Stanovich How to think straight about psychology , 1985 .

[44]  Dagmar Divjak,et al.  3. Frequency and entrenchment , 2015 .

[45]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[46]  Jeremy Miles,et al.  Discovering statistics using R, 1st Edition , 2012 .

[47]  Dagmar Divjak,et al.  Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy , 2010 .

[48]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  "They whispered me the answer" in Australia and the US: A comparative experimental study , 2013 .

[49]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  [Regression modeling strategies]. , 2011, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[50]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English , 2010 .

[51]  Antti Arppe,et al.  Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy , 2007 .

[52]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Evidence in linguistics: Three approaches to genitives in English , 2002 .

[53]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Post-verbal constituent ordering in English , 2003 .

[54]  W. Grove,et al.  Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. , 2000, Psychological assessment.

[55]  Ewa Dąbrowska,et al.  Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment , 2012 .

[56]  Neil Bermel,,et al.  Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: A study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech , 2012 .

[57]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  Research Methods in Language Variation and Change: Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage , 2013 .

[58]  Thaddeus Tarpey All Models are Right...Most are Useless , 2009 .