Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition

Abstract

The goal of this article is to make the case for a radical exemplar account of child language acquisition, under which unwitnessed forms are produced and comprehended by on-the-fly analogy across multiple stored exemplars, weighted by their degree of similarity to the target with regard to the task at hand. Across the domains of (1) word meanings, (2) morphologically inflected words, (3) n-grams, (4) sentence-level constructions and (5) phonetics and phonology, accounts based on independently-represented abstractions (whether formal rules or prototype categories) fail for two reasons. First, it is not possible to posit abstractions that delineate possible and impossible form; e.g. that (1) rule in pool tables and data tables, but rule out chairs, (2) rule in the past-tense forms netted and bet but rule out * setted and * jet, (3) rule in the bigram f+t but rule out (probabilistically) v+t, (4) rule in both John feared Bill and John frightened Bill but rule out * John laughed Bill, (5) rule in Speaker A but rule out Speaker B as the person who produced a particular word (e.g. Sa’urday). Second, for each domain, empirical data provide evidence of exemplar storage that cannot be captured by putative abstractions: e.g. speakers prefer and/or show an advantage for (1) exemplar variation even within word-meaning ‘category boundaries’, (2) novel inflected forms that are similar to existing exemplars, (3) n-grams that have occurred frequently in the input, (4) SVO sentences with he as SUBJECT and it as OBJECT and (5) repeated productions of ‘the same’ word that are phonologically similar or, better still, identical. An exemplar account avoids an intractable lumping-or-splitting dilemma facing abstraction-based accounts and provides a unitary explanation of language acquisition across all domains; one that is consistent with models and empirical findings from the computational modelling and neuroimaging literature.

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

“…Yang et al (2017) and Bolhuis (2019) represent further examples of the views held by “traditional” biolinguistics. Usage-based linguists, however, disagree with this assessment (see e.g., Ambridge and Lieven, 2011; Rowland, 2014; Ambridge, 2019). Here, we do in fact not see many points of convergence.…”

“…Not all versions of usage-based approaches are compatible or convergent with progressive biolinguistics. For example, Ambridge (2019) recently proposed a radical exemplar model of language acquisition that does not posit stored abstractions. Instead, novel forms are comprehended and produced via on-the-fly analogy across multiple stored exemplars.…”

Density and Distinctiveness in Early Word Learning: Evidence From Neural Network Simulations

“…However, we want to emphasize that the focus of this report is a simple model of word sound memory configuration and associated triggering effects, rather than an explicit model of word comprehension or production. In addition, we remain agnostic regarding the nature of actual word sound representations, for instance prototypes, exemplars, or hybrids (see Ambridge, 2018, for discussion).…”

Commentary on special issue: Syntax and verbal short term memory

“…For example, Hay and Bresnan (2006) propose that /æ/ in hand is pronounced differently according to whether the word refers to a literal hand, or whether it occurs in an idiomatic expression such as lend a hand . Such phenomena have led to exemplar accounts of the language system (Ambridge, 2019; Bybee, 2013) which propose that all linguistic representations in LTM are detailed specific and experiential, rather than abstract. These accounts dovetail with theoretical models which propose a role for LTM in syntactic processing.…”