For languages to survive as complex cultural systems, they need to be learnable. According to traditional approaches, learning is made possible by constraining the degrees of freedom in advance of experience and by the construction of complex structure during development. This article explores a third contributor to complexity: namely, the extent to which syntactic structure can be an emergent property of how simpler entities – words – interact with one another. The authors found that when naturalistic child directed speech was instantiated in a dynamic network, communities formed around words that were more densely connected with other words than they were with the rest of the network. This process is designed to mirror what we know about distributional patterns in natural language: namely, the network communities represented the syntactic hubs of semi-formulaic slot-and-frame patterns, characteristic of early speech. The network itself was blind to grammatical information and its organization reflected (a) the frequency of using a word and (b) the probabilities of transitioning from one word to another. The authors show that grammatical patterns in the input disassociate by community structure in the emergent network. These communities provide coherent hubs which could be a reliable source of syntactic information for the learner. These initial findings are presented here as proof-of-concept in the hope that other researchers will explore the possibilities and limitations of this approach on a larger scale and with more languages. The implications of a dynamic network approach are discussed for the learnability burden and the development of an adult-like grammar.
AlishahiA.StevensonS. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32, 789–834.
2.
BanavarJ. R.MaritanA.RinaldoA. (1999). Size and form in efficient transportation networks. Nature, 399, 130–132.
3.
BannardC.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). Early grammatical development is piecemeal and lexically specific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 17284–17289.
4.
BarabásiA. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
5.
BarabásiA.AlbertR. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 5439, 509–512.
6.
BeckageN.SmithL.HillsT. (2011). Small worlds and semantic network growth in typical and late talkers. PLoS ONE, 65(5), e19348.
7.
BecknerC.BlytheR.BybeeJ.ChristiansenM. H.CroftW.EllisN. C.SchoenemannT. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26.
8.
BlondelV. D.GuillaumeJ. L.LambiotteR.LefebvreE. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008.
9.
BloomfieldL. (1938). Language or ideas?Language, 12, 89–95.
10.
BodR. (2007). Is the end of supervised parsing in sight? In ZaenenA.van den BoschA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 400–407). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Borge-HolthoeferJ.ArenasA. (2010). Semantic networks: Structure and dynamics. Entropy, 12, 1264–1302.
13.
BorovskyA.ElmanJ. (2006). Language input and semantic categories: A relation between cognition and early word learning. Journal of Child Language, 33, 759–790.
14.
BraineM. D. S. (1987). What is learned in acquiring word classes: A step toward an acquisition theory. In MacWhinneyB. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language aquisition (pp. 65–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
BybeeJ. (2010). Frequency of use and the organization of language: Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
Cameron-FaulknerT.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873.
17.
CanchoR. F.SoléR. V. (2001). The small world of human language. Proceedings of Biological Sciences, 268, 2261–2265.
18.
CartwrightT. A.BrentM. R. (1997). Syntactic categorization in early language acquisition: Formalizing the role of distributional analysis. Cognition, 63, 121–170.
19.
ChomskyN. (1957). Syntactic structures. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
20.
ChomskyN. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
21.
ChomskyN. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York, NY: Springer.
22.
ChristiansenM. H.ChaterN. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 82–88.
23.
ClarkR. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language, 1, 1–10.
24.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
25.
CollinsA. M.QuillianM. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
26.
ConnorM.GertnerY.FisherC.RothD. (2008). Baby SRL: Modeling early language acquisition. In ClarkA.ToutanovaK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning – CONLL’ 08 (pp. 81–88). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
27.
ConnorM.GertnerY.FisherC.RothD. (2009). Minimally supervised model of early language acquisition. In HajičJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning - CONLL ‘09 (pp. 84–92). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
28.
CroftW. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
ElmanJ. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.
30.
ElmanJ. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99.
31.
ElmanJ. L. (2005). Connectionist models of cognitive development: Where next?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 111–117.
32.
ElmanJ. L.BatesE. A.JohnsonM. H.Karmiloff-SmithA.ParisiD.PlunkettK. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
FinchS.ChaterN. (1992). Bootstrapping syntactic categories using statistical methods. In DaelemansD.PowersW. (Eds.), Background and experiments in machine learning of natural language: Proceedings of the 1st SHOE workshop on statistical methods in natural language (pp. 229–236), Tilburg, The Netherlands: ITK.
34.
FinchS.ChaterN. (1994). Distributional bootstrapping: From word class to proto-sentence. In RamA.EiseltK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 301–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
FreudenthalD.PineJ. M.JonesG.GobetF. (2015). Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of optional infinitive errors in children’s declaratives and Wh- questions. Cognition, 143, 61–76.
36.
GivonT. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
37.
GoldbergA. (2005). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
GolinkoffR. M.MervisC. B.Hirsh-PasekK. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21, 125–155.
39.
GriffithsT. L.GoldwaterS. (2007). A fully Bayesian approach to unsupervised part-of-speech tagging. In ZaenenA.van den BoschA. (Eds.), ACL’07 – 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 744–751). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
40.
HarrisZ. S. (1954). Distributional structure. WORD, 10, 146–162.
41.
HebbD. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley.
42.
HillsT. T.MaoueneM.MaoueneJ.SheyaA.SmithL. (2009). Categorical structure among shared features in networks of early-learned nouns. Cognition, 112, 381–396.
43.
HollandJ. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaption builds complexity. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
44.
HollandJ. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45.
HopperP. (1998). Emergent grammar. In TomaselloM. (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 143–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
IbbotsonP.LópezD. G.McKaneA. J. (2018). Goldilocks forgetting in cross-situational learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1301.
47.
KawamotoA. H.McClellandJ. (1987). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents of sentences. In Parallel distributed processing. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 195–248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
KleinD.ManningC. D. (2005). Natural language grammar induction with a generative constituent-context model. Pattern Recognition, 38, 1407–1419.
49.
KuhlP. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 11850–11857.
50.
KuhlP. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.
51.
LangackerR. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
52.
LangackerR. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
53.
LievenE.BehrensH.SpearesJ.TomaselloM. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370.
54.
LievenE.PineJ.BaldwinG. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–219.
55.
LievenE.SalomoD.TomaselloM. (2009). Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 481–507.
56.
LowelS.SingerW. (1992). Selection of intrinsic horizontal connections in the visual cortex by correlated neuronal activity. Science, 255, 209–212.
57.
MacWhinneyB. (1979). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43, 1–123.
58.
MarkmanE. M. (1994). Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua, 92, 199–227.
59.
McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review, 126, 1–51.
60.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
61.
MintzT. H. (2002). Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory & Cognition, 30, 678–686.
62.
MintzT. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91–117.
63.
MintzT. H.NewportE. L.BeverT. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393–424.
64.
NewmanM.BarabásiA.WattsD. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
ParisienC.FazlyA.StevensonS. (2010). An incremental bayesian model for learning syntactic categories. In ClarkA.ToutanovaK. (eds.), CoNLL ’08 Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 89–96). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
66.
PearlL.LidzJ. (2010). When domain-general learning fails and when it succeeds: Identifying the contribution of domain specificity. Language Learning and Development, 5, 235–265.
67.
PinkerS. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283.
68.
RedingtonM.ChaterN.FinchS. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22, 425–469.
69.
ReederP. A.NewportE. L.AslinR. N. (2013). From shared contexts to syntactic categories: The role of distributional information in learning linguistic form-classes. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 30–54.
70.
SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L.AslinR. N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 606–621.
71.
SchützeH. (1993). Part-of-speech induction from scratch. In SchubertL. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 251–258). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
SteyversM.TenenbaumJ. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks. Cognitive Science, 29, 41–78.
74.
TheakstonA. L.LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28, 127–152.
75.
ThompsonS. P.NewportE. L. (2007). Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development, 3, 1–42.
76.
TomaselloM. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.
78.
WexlerK.CulicoverP. (1983). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
