University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 On the origins of linguistic structure : three models of regular and irregular past tense formation Benjamin J. Sienicki The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sienicki, Benjamin J., "On the origins of linguistic structure : three models of regular and irregular past tense formation" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8129. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8129 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **PIease check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission ______ No, I do not grant permission ___________ Author's Signature: Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe*i3W»n»ti«ld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. On the Origins of Linguistic Structure: Three Models of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Formation by Benjamin J. Sienicki B A. University of Montana, 1998 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana May 2001 Approved by: Committee Chair Dean, Graduate School S-7-01 Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP38930 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI Dissadation nibliahing UMI EP38930 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sienicki, Benjamin J. M.A., May 2001 Applied Linguistics On the Origins of Linguistic Structure: Three Models of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Formation Committee Chair: Irene Appelbaum^A^ Bates and Goodman (1999) represent a “unified lexicalist” approach to grammar, arguing that both grammar and the lexicon are subserved by the same domain-general learning mechanism, and further, that grammar “emerges” from the lexicon. Plunkett and Marchman’s work on past tense formation (1991, 1993), improving upon the modeling techniques of Rumelhart and McClelland (1986), exemplifies a unified lexicalist approach. By abandoning the more traditional dual-mechanism approach (Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Chomsky, 1968, 1986, 1988; Pinker, 1994, 1999; Pinker & Prince 1988, 1994), unified lexicalists aim to provide a more plausible account of child language acquisition beyond the rote-leaming phase. Pinker (1999), in the spirit of the Pinker & Prince (1988, 1994), repudiates the unified lexicalist approach, however, on grounds that single mechanisms model the acquisition of regular and irregular morphology inaccurately. Results of psychological studies such as the “wug” test (Gleason, 1958; Pinker, 1999) suggest that the transition to the system- building phase (Stage 2 in the u-shaped learning process) is largely underdetermined in the unified account. It is argued that unified lexicalists fail to (i) offer a coherent definition of “emergence” and (ii) adequately clarify how, or by what mechanism(s), grammar can properly be said to emerge from the lexicon. On the other hand, it is argued that Pinker fails to (i) provide a clear account of that which is “instinctual” about the dual mechanism when it comes to regular and irregular morphology, (ii) address the improvements made by conncctionists on the single mechanism model, and (iii) explain how his higher-level psychological theory can be implemented at the lower neurological level (without appeal to a connectionist “abstract neurology”). In a more comprehensive approach to the emergence of regular and irregular past tense, one that operates on different levels of analysis (psychological versus neurological), both single- and dual-mechanism accounts hold indispensable pieces of the explanatory puzzle. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ii Contents ...................................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Issue.......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Models ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Unified Lexicalism ................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Emergence .............................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Problems .................................................................................................................22 3.0 Single Mechanism Models ................................................................................................. 26 3.1 Implementations .....................................................................................................27 3.2 Model’s Jo b ............................................................................................................28 4.0 Rumelhart & McClelland Model ........................................................................................31 4.1 Patterns ...................................................................................................................34 4.2 Problems .................................................................................................................41 4.3 Implications ........................................................................................................... 51 5.0 Bottleneck M odel ............................................................................................................... 53 5.1 Problems .................................................................................................................55 6.0 Rules All the Way Down Model ........................................................................................ 59 6.1 Problems .................................................................................................................64 7.0 Convergent Perspective ..................................................................................................... 69 7.1 Problems .................................................................................................................74 8.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 78 9.0 Comprehensive Approach ..................................................................................................88 Figures 1-3................................................................................................................................ 93 Figures 4-5 ................................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 6 ......................................................................................................................................95 Figure 7 ......................................................................................................................................96 Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................97 Table 2 .......................................................................................................................................98 Paradigms..................................................................................................................................99 References ............................................................................................................................... 100 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without