skip to main content


Title: Moving away from lexicalism in psycho- and neuro-linguistics

In standard models of language production or comprehension, the elements which are retrieved from memory and combined into a syntactic structure are “lemmas” or “lexical items.” Such models implicitly take a “lexicalist” approach, which assumes that lexical items store meaning, syntax, and form together, that syntactic and lexical processes are distinct, and that syntactic structure does not extend below the word level. Across the last several decades, linguistic research examining a typologically diverse set of languages has provided strong evidence against this approach. These findings suggest that syntactic processes apply both above and below the “word” level, and that both meaning and form are partially determined by the syntactic context. This has significant implications for psychological and neurological models of language processing as well as for the way that we understand different types of aphasia and other language disorders. As a consequence of the lexicalist assumptions of these models, many kinds of sentences that speakers produce and comprehend—in a variety of languages, including English—are challenging for them to account for. Here we focus on language production as a case study. In order to move away from lexicalism in psycho- and neuro-linguistics, it is not enough to simply update the syntactic representations of words or phrases; the processing algorithms involved in language production are constrained by the lexicalist representations that they operate on, and thus also need to be reimagined. We provide an overview of the arguments against lexicalism, discuss how lexicalist assumptions are represented in models of language production, and examine the types of phenomena that they struggle to account for as a consequence. We also outline what a non-lexicalist alternative might look like, as a model that does not rely on a lemma representation, but instead represents that knowledge as separate mappings between (a) meaning and syntax and (b) syntax and form, with a single integrated stage for the retrieval and assembly of syntactic structure. By moving away from lexicalist assumptions, this kind of model provides better cross-linguistic coverage and aligns better with contemporary syntactic theory.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1749407
PAR ID:
10473487
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Publisher / Repository:
Frontiers
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Frontiers in Language Sciences
Volume:
2
ISSN:
2813-4605
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Representations from artificial neural network (ANN) language models have been shown to predict human brain activity in the language network. To understand what aspects of linguistic stimuli contribute to ANN-to-brain similarity, we used an fMRI data set of responses to n = 627 naturalistic English sentences (Pereira et al., 2018) and systematically manipulated the stimuli for which ANN representations were extracted. In particular, we (i) perturbed sentences’ word order, (ii) removed different subsets of words, or (iii) replaced sentences with other sentences of varying semantic similarity. We found that the lexical-semantic content of the sentence (largely carried by content words) rather than the sentence’s syntactic form (conveyed via word order or function words) is primarily responsible for the ANN-to-brain similarity. In follow-up analyses, we found that perturbation manipulations that adversely affect brain predictivity also lead to more divergent representations in the ANN’s embedding space and decrease the ANN’s ability to predict upcoming tokens in those stimuli. Further, results are robust as to whether the mapping model is trained on intact or perturbed stimuli and whether the ANN sentence representations are conditioned on the same linguistic context that humans saw. The critical result—that lexical-semantic content is the main contributor to the similarity between ANN representations and neural ones—aligns with the idea that the goal of the human language system is to extract meaning from linguistic strings. Finally, this work highlights the strength of systematic experimental manipulations for evaluating how close we are to accurate and generalizable models of the human language network.

     
    more » « less
  2. Paraguayan Guarani does not overtly mark tense in its inflectional system. Prior accounts of languages without obligatory morphological tense have posited a phonologically covert lexical tense, or have introduced tense semantics via a rule, in the post-syntactic interpretative component. We offer a more radical approach: Paraguayan Guarani does not have tense at the level of lexical or logical semantics. We propose that evaluation time shift, a mechanism independently attested in the narrative present in languages with tense, is more widely used in Paraguayan Guarani for encoding temporal meaning. The broader consequence of our proposal is that tense is not a linguistic universal. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Children use syntax to learn verbs, in a process known as syntactic bootstrapping. The structure‐mapping account proposes that syntactic bootstrapping begins with a universal bias to map each noun phrase in a sentence onto a participant role in a structured conceptual representation of an event. Equipped with this bias, children interpret thenumber of noun phrasesaccompanying a new verb as evidence about the semantic predicate–argument structure of the sentence, and therefore about the meaning of the verb. In this paper, we first review evidence for the structure–mapping account, and then discuss challenges to the account arising from the existence of languages that allow verbs' arguments to be omitted, such as Korean. These challenges prompt us to (a) refine our notion of the distributional learning mechanisms that create representations of sentence structure, and (b) propose that anexpectation of discourse continuityallows children to gather linguistic evidence for each verb’s arguments across sentences in a coherent discourse. Taken together, the proposed learning mechanisms and biases sketch a route whereby simple aspects of sentence structure guide verb learning from the start of multi‐word sentence comprehension, and do so even if some of the new verb’s arguments are omitted due to discourse redundancy.

     
    more » « less
  4. Perlman, Marcus (Ed.)
    Longstanding cross-linguistic work on event representations in spoken languages have argued for a robust mapping between an event’s underlying representation and its syntactic encoding, such that–for example–the agent of an event is most frequently mapped to subject position. In the same vein, sign languages have long been claimed to construct signs that visually represent their meaning, i.e., signs that are iconic. Experimental research on linguistic parameters such as plurality and aspect has recently shown some of them to be visually universal in sign, i.e. recognized by non-signers as well as signers, and have identified specific visual cues that achieve this mapping. However, little is known about what makes action representations in sign language iconic, or whether and how the mapping of underlying event representations to syntactic encoding is visually apparent in the form of a verb sign. To this end, we asked what visual cues non-signers may use in evaluating transitivity (i.e., the number of entities involved in an action). To do this, we correlated non-signer judgments about transitivity of verb signs from American Sign Language (ASL) with phonological characteristics of these signs. We found that non-signers did not accurately guess the transitivity of the signs, but that non-signer transitivity judgments can nevertheless be predicted from the signs’ visual characteristics. Further, non-signers cue in on just those features that code event representations across sign languages, despite interpreting them differently. This suggests the existence of visual biases that underlie detection of linguistic categories, such as transitivity, which may uncouple from underlying conceptual representations over time in mature sign languages due to lexicalization processes. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    In this study, we address the mapping problem for modal words: how do children learn the form‐to‐ meaning mappings for words likecouldorhave toin their input languages? Learning modal words poses considerable challenges as their meanings are conceptually complex and the way these meanings are mapped to grammatical forms and structures is likewise complex and cross‐linguistically variable. Against a backdrop of how cross‐linguistic modal systems can vary, we focus on new work highlighting the developmental roles of the following: (a) syntactic categories of modal words, (b) interrelationships between modal ‘force’ (possibility and necessity) and ‘flavour’ (root and epistemic), (c) semantic representations for modal forms and (d) children's own emerging modal systems, as a whole, which show that the way they map forms to the ‘modal meaning space’ (considering both force and flavour dimensions) diverges from how adults do, even if the same forms are present. Modality provides a rich natural laboratory for exploring the interrelationships between our conceptual world of possibilities, how concepts get packaged by the syntax–semantics of grammatical systems, and how child learners surmount these form‐meaning mapping challenges.

     
    more » « less