Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators

Ambridge, Ben

doi:10.1177/0142723720949723

Cited by 50 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note, however, that it is in principle possible to view the concept of a construction as a mainly heuristic device, rather than positing that constructions are cognitively real(istic) entities. This means that this approach is, in principle, also compatible with views that treat abstractions as made of exemplars [24,25] or association-based models eschewing the concept of constructions [26].…”

Section: How To Pair Form and Meaning: The Origins Of Constructions Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

Hartmann

Pleyer

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construction grammar is an approach to language that posits that units and structures in language can be exhaustively described as pairings between form and meaning. These pairings are called constructions and can have different degrees of abstraction, i.e. they span the entire range from very concrete ( armadillo, avocado ) to very abstract constructions such as the ditransitive construction ( I gave her a book ). This approach has been applied to a wide variety of different areas of research in linguistics, such as how new constructions emerge and change historically. It has also been applied to investigate the evolutionary emergence of modern fully fledged language, i.e. the question of how systems of constructions can arise out of prelinguistic communication. In this paper, we review the contribution of usage-based construction grammar approaches to language change and language evolution to the questions of (i) the structure and nature of prehistoric languages and (ii) how constructions in prehistoric languages emerged out of non-linguistic or protolinguistic communication. In particular, we discuss the possibilities of using constructions as the main unit of analysis both in reconstructing predecessors of existing languages (protolanguages) and in formulating theories of how a potential predecessor of human language in general (protolanguage) must have looked like. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Reconstructing prehistoric languages’.

show abstract

Section: How To Pair Form and Meaning: The Origins Of Constructions Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

Hartmann

Pleyer

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, we can draw on this theory to discuss frequency effects from not one but different perspectives, such as frequency effects in language learning, representation, processing, and use. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that this theory is not in conflict with other emergentist theories (e.g., Conklin, 2020;Van Lancker Sidtis, 2015;Wiechmann et al, 2013), such as exemplar-based theory (e.g., Abbot-Smith & Tomasello, 2006;Ambridge, 2020aAmbridge, , 2020bBod, 2006;Goldinger, 1996;Pierrehumbert, 2001), connectionist theory (e.g., Christiansen & Chater, 1999;Elman, 1991;MacWhinney, 1998;Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986;Seidenberg, 1994), and statistical learning theory (e.g., Arnon, 2019;Christiansen, 2019;Saffran, 2003). In fact, the usage-based theory borrows and embraces the fundamental concepts from all of these theories.…”

Section: What Theory Can Predict the Processing Advantage For Formulaic Language Over Novel Language?mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The processing advantage for FL over novel language can be predicted by a number of theories and models. These theories and models account for the FL advantage from different perspectives, such as language representation (exemplar-based theory, e.g., Abbot-Smith & Tomasello, 2006;Ambridge, 2020aAmbridge, , 2020bBod, 1998Bod, , 2006Goldinger, 1996;Pierrehumbert, 2001; connectionist theory, e.g., Christiansen & Chater, 1999;Ellis, 2001Ellis, , 2003Elman, 1990Elman, , 1991MacWhinney, 1998;Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986;Seidenberg, 1994), language learning and input (statistical learning theory, e.g., Arnon, 2019;Christiansen, 2019;Saffran, 2003; probabilistic theory, e.g., Gregory et al, 1999;Jurafsky, 1996Jurafsky, , 2003McDonald & Shillcock, 2003a, 2003bSeidenberg & MacDonald, 1999), and formulaicity of language (idiom principle, e.g., Sinclair, 1991).…”

Section: What Theory Can Predict the Processing Advantage For Formulaic Language Over Novel Language?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our brain detects and registers information of this word from sensory input, such as reading and listening. The registered information includes not only the form (such as morpheme and phoneme) and meaning(s) of this word but also contextual details (such as co-occurring word/s) and linguistic abstractions (rules about how to use this word) (e.g., Ambridge, 2020b). Instead of being unorganised, each occurrence of a word is systematically marked in a cognitive network in our memory, along with the connections between its components and with other words(s) that often co-occur (e.g., Pierrehumbert, 2001).…”

Section: What Theory Can Predict the Processing Advantage For Formulaic Language Over Novel Language?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead of being unorganised, each occurrence of a word is systematically marked in a cognitive network in our memory, along with the connections between its components and with other words(s) that often co-occur (e.g., Pierrehumbert, 2001). This network is always non-linear, incremental (e.g., Ellis, 2001), recurrent (e.g., Elman, 1990Elman, , 1991MacWhinney, 1998), hidden-layered (e.g., Ambridge, 2020aAmbridge, , 2020bMacWhinney, 2020), and recursive (e.g., Christiansen & Chater, 1999). The mental representation of this word is further updated on the basis of subsequent input.…”

Section: What Theory Can Predict the Processing Advantage For Formulaic Language Over Novel Language?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Does Modification Affect the Processing of Formulaic Language? Evidence from L1 and L2 Speakers of Chinese

Shang¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been well documented that formulaic language (FL) – strings of language above the word level in most cases, such as binomials, collocations, n-grams, idioms – enjoys a processing advantage over novel language (e.g., Arnon & Snider, 2010; Carrol & Conklin, 2020; Hallin & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2017; Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, & Schmitt, 2011a; Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, & van Heuven, 2011b; Tremblay, Derwing, Libben, & Westbury, 2011). The majority of these studies focused on formulaic sequences (FSs) in their original form. In natural language use, however, many FSs are modified with words intervening in-between the individual constituents (e.g., provide information → provide some of the information, see Vilkaitė, 2016a). Whether or not the processing advantage can be extended to modified FSs remains poorly investigated. In this thesis, three reading studies were conducted to address this gap from the perspective of Chinese FL processing, in which the influence of phrase frequency, modification degree, age, and L2 proficiency, were explored and discussed in detail. Study 1 recorded the eye movements of L1 Chinese adults when reading sentences embedded with frequent collocations and infrequent controls. The results suggested a significant processing advantage for collocations over relative controls. Critically, the processing advantage for collocations in their original form extended to their short- (with two Chinese characters inserted in the middle of the phrase) and long-insertion forms (with four Chinese characters inserted in the middle of the phrase). The processing advantage was largely observed in the whole phrase in the late processing stage. Study 2 and Study 3 borrowed the materials from Study 1 and applied them in a self-paced reading experiment with L2 Chinese learners from Japan and Thailand of different language proficiencies, and L1 Chinese children at Grades Three and Six, respectively. The results of Study 2 revealed a significant processing advantage for collocations over respective controls in L2 learners. More crucially, the processing advantage for L2 collocations persisted in their short- and long-insertion forms. L2 proficiency and L1 background were also found to play a role in L2 FS processing. The results of Study 3 suggested a significant processing advantage for collocations over respective controls in L1 children. More importantly, the processing advantage for collocations remained in their short- and long-insertion forms in sixth graders; and remained in their short-insertion form in third graders. Furthermore, age was found to play a role in FS processing in children. Contributions to the current literature and methodologies are discussed at the end of the thesis.

show abstract

The Future of Exemplar Theory

Gradoville¹

2023

The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators

Cited by 50 publications

References 67 publications

Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

How Does Modification Affect the Processing of Formulaic Language? Evidence from L1 and L2 Speakers of Chinese

The Future of Exemplar Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About