The DOI matches its Crossref record; 205 of the 205 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Items 201–205 of 205
10. Version spaces, neural networks, and Analogical Modeling
Mudrow, M. (2002) · Human cognitive processing · doi:10.1075/hcp.10.17mud · Cited by 4
Action sequences instead of representational levels
Kempson, R., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x17000449 · Cited by 4
Feldman, L. B., & Milin, P. (2017) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x17000358 · Cited by 3
O'Grady, W. D. (2017) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x17000541 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Baayen R. H., 2016, From semantics to dialectometry, 1
- Bidgood A., Cognitive Science
- Carey S., 1978, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17
- Chomsky N., 1980, Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky
- Chomsky N., 1968, The sound pattern of English
- Corkery M., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01280 · arXiv
- Erk K., 2010, Paper presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference Short Papers
- Keuleers E., 2008, Memory-based learning of inflectional morphology
- Langacker R. W., 2009, The emergence of structure from usage
- Pinker S., 1999, Words and rules
- Singh L., 2001, Proceedings of the 26th Boston University conference on language development, 608
- Skousen R., 1989, Analogical modeling of language
- Skousen R., 2005, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0510146 · arXiv
- Ullman M. T., 2015, Neurobiology of language, 953
- Van Noord R., 2015, Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 5, 65
- Ziegler J., 2018, Poster presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345
Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M., & Mineroff, Z. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348 · Cited by 170
Structural priming during comprehension: A pattern from many pieces
Tooley, K. M. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02209-7 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Ambridge, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ambridge, Ben
- ORCID
- Ambridge, Ben
- Venue
- First Language
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-09-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 509-559
- ISSN
- 0142-7237 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-2344
- OpenAlex
- W2973169533
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 205
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 41.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- First Language (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- H2020 European Research Council (681296: CLASS)
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L008955/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- exemplar models, language acquisition, child language, analogy, abstraction, word meaning, morphological inflection, n-grams, sentence construction, phonology, phonetics, category boundaries, novel word learning, computational modelling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review