Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study
Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00146-x
复制
发表时间：
2003-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Hayes, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Albright, A;Hayes, B
形态学模式是否以规则的形式学习？一些模型否认这一点，将所有形态归因于类比机制。双重机制模型（Pinker，S。，＆Prince，A。（1998）。关于语言和联系主义：对语言获取的平行分布处理模型的分析。认知，28，73-193）认为说话者会在内部化规则，但是这些规则很少，仅涵盖常规流程。其余模式归因于类比。本文提倡第三种方法，该方法使用多个随机规则，没有类比。我们提出了一种采用归纳学习来发现多个规则的模型，并根据其在词典中的表现分配信心得分。我们的模型通过对英语过去时态的新“ Wug测试”数据支持了这两种替代方法，这些数据表明，新颖的过去的参与者评分取决于茎的语音形状，无论是不规则的，而且令人惊讶的是，对于常客而言。后一个观察结果无法在双重机制方法下进行解释，该方法衍生出所有常规的单一规则。为了评估所有形态都是类比的替代假设，我们实施了一个纯粹的类似模型，该模型仅根据它们与现有动词的相似性评估新颖的过去。经过实验数据测试，这个类似模型在关键方面也失败了：它无法找到需要抽象结构特征的模式，并且它利用基于单个，高度相似的示例的令人难以置信的响应。我们得出的结论是，说话者基于抽象结构特性扩展了形态模式，该模式适当地描述了规则。 （c）2003 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。
Are morphological patterns learned in the form of rules? Some models deny this, attributing all morphology to analogical mechanisms. The dual mechanism model (Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1998). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193) posits that speakers do internalize rules, but that these rules are few and cover only regular processes; the remaining patterns are attributed to analogy. This article advocates a third approach, which uses multiple stochastic rules and no analogy. We propose a model that employs inductive learning to discover multiple rules, and assigns them confidence scores based on their performance in the lexicon. Our model is supported over the two alternatives by new "wug test" data on English past tenses, which show that participant ratings of novel pasts depend on the phonological shape of the stem, both for irregulars and, surprisingly, also for regulars. The latter observation cannot be explained under the dual mechanism approach, which derives all regulars with a single rule. To evaluate the alternative hypothesis that all morphology is analogical, we implemented a purely analogical model, which evaluates novel pasts based solely on their similarity to existing verbs. Tested against experimental data, this analogical model also failed in key respects: it could not locate patterns that require abstract structural characterizations, and it favored implausible responses based on single, highly similar exemplars. We conclude that speakers extend morphological patterns based on abstract structural properties, of a kind appropriately described with rules. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.