The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule. Ramscar, M. Cogn Psychol, 45(1):45-94, 2002. abstract bibtex How do we produce the past tenses of verbs? For the last 20 years this question has been the focal domain for conflicting theories of language, knowledge representation, and cognitive processing. On one side of the debate have been similarity-based or single-route approaches that propose that all past tenses are formed simply through phonological analogies to existing past tenses stored in memory. On the other side of the debate are rule-based or dual-route approaches which agree that phonological analogy is important for producing irregular past tenses (e.g., think–>thought), but argue that regular past tenses (e.g., walk–>walked) are generated via a +ed rule and that a principled account of regular inflection can only be given by recourse to explicit rules. This debate has become a crucial battleground for arguments concerning the necessity and importance of abstract mental rules, embracing not only language processing, but also the of nature cognition itself. However, in centering on the roles of phonological similarity and rules, the past tense debate has largely ignored the possible role of semantics in determining inflection. This paper presents five studies that demonstrate a striking and decisive role of semantic similarity in inflection. In fact, semantic factors appear to be more important in inflection than the grammatical considerations put forward by the dual-route account. Further, these new findings provide a new way of discriminating between the claims of single-route (similarity-based) and dual-route (rule-based) approaches. It appears that inflection is carried out through analogical reminding based on semantic and phonological similarity and that a rule-based route is not necessary to account for past tense inflection.
@Article{Ramscar2002,
author = {Michael Ramscar},
journal = {Cogn Psychol},
title = {The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule.},
year = {2002},
number = {1},
pages = {45-94},
volume = {45},
abstract = {How do we produce the past tenses of verbs? For the last 20 years
this question has been the focal domain for conflicting theories
of language, knowledge representation, and cognitive processing.
On one side of the debate have been similarity-based or single-route
approaches that propose that all past tenses are formed simply through
phonological analogies to existing past tenses stored in memory.
On the other side of the debate are rule-based or dual-route approaches
which agree that phonological analogy is important for producing
irregular past tenses (e.g., think-->thought), but argue that regular
past tenses (e.g., walk-->walked) are generated via a +ed rule and
that a principled account of regular inflection can only be given
by recourse to explicit rules. This debate has become a crucial battleground
for arguments concerning the necessity and importance of abstract
mental rules, embracing not only language processing, but also the
of nature cognition itself. However, in centering on the roles of
phonological similarity and rules, the past tense debate has largely
ignored the possible role of semantics in determining inflection.
This paper presents five studies that demonstrate a striking and
decisive role of semantic similarity in inflection. In fact, semantic
factors appear to be more important in inflection than the grammatical
considerations put forward by the dual-route account. Further, these
new findings provide a new way of discriminating between the claims
of single-route (similarity-based) and dual-route (rule-based) approaches.
It appears that inflection is carried out through analogical reminding
based on semantic and phonological similarity and that a rule-based
route is not necessary to account for past tense inflection.},
keywords = {Humans, Linguistics, Semantics, 12127502},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"dPD72LcPc5wcz98wZ","bibbaseid":"ramscar-theroleofmeaningininflectionwhythepasttensedoesnotrequirearule-2002","author_short":["Ramscar, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["Michael"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ramscar"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cogn Psychol","title":"The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule.","year":"2002","number":"1","pages":"45-94","volume":"45","abstract":"How do we produce the past tenses of verbs? For the last 20 years this question has been the focal domain for conflicting theories of language, knowledge representation, and cognitive processing. On one side of the debate have been similarity-based or single-route approaches that propose that all past tenses are formed simply through phonological analogies to existing past tenses stored in memory. On the other side of the debate are rule-based or dual-route approaches which agree that phonological analogy is important for producing irregular past tenses (e.g., think–>thought), but argue that regular past tenses (e.g., walk–>walked) are generated via a +ed rule and that a principled account of regular inflection can only be given by recourse to explicit rules. This debate has become a crucial battleground for arguments concerning the necessity and importance of abstract mental rules, embracing not only language processing, but also the of nature cognition itself. However, in centering on the roles of phonological similarity and rules, the past tense debate has largely ignored the possible role of semantics in determining inflection. This paper presents five studies that demonstrate a striking and decisive role of semantic similarity in inflection. In fact, semantic factors appear to be more important in inflection than the grammatical considerations put forward by the dual-route account. Further, these new findings provide a new way of discriminating between the claims of single-route (similarity-based) and dual-route (rule-based) approaches. It appears that inflection is carried out through analogical reminding based on semantic and phonological similarity and that a rule-based route is not necessary to account for past tense inflection.","keywords":"Humans, Linguistics, Semantics, 12127502","bibtex":"@Article{Ramscar2002,\n author = {Michael Ramscar},\n journal = {Cogn Psychol},\n title = {The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule.},\n year = {2002},\n number = {1},\n pages = {45-94},\n volume = {45},\n abstract = {How do we produce the past tenses of verbs? For the last 20 years\n\tthis question has been the focal domain for conflicting theories\n\tof language, knowledge representation, and cognitive processing.\n\tOn one side of the debate have been similarity-based or single-route\n\tapproaches that propose that all past tenses are formed simply through\n\tphonological analogies to existing past tenses stored in memory.\n\tOn the other side of the debate are rule-based or dual-route approaches\n\twhich agree that phonological analogy is important for producing\n\tirregular past tenses (e.g., think-->thought), but argue that regular\n\tpast tenses (e.g., walk-->walked) are generated via a +ed rule and\n\tthat a principled account of regular inflection can only be given\n\tby recourse to explicit rules. This debate has become a crucial battleground\n\tfor arguments concerning the necessity and importance of abstract\n\tmental rules, embracing not only language processing, but also the\n\tof nature cognition itself. However, in centering on the roles of\n\tphonological similarity and rules, the past tense debate has largely\n\tignored the possible role of semantics in determining inflection.\n\tThis paper presents five studies that demonstrate a striking and\n\tdecisive role of semantic similarity in inflection. In fact, semantic\n\tfactors appear to be more important in inflection than the grammatical\n\tconsiderations put forward by the dual-route account. Further, these\n\tnew findings provide a new way of discriminating between the claims\n\tof single-route (similarity-based) and dual-route (rule-based) approaches.\n\tIt appears that inflection is carried out through analogical reminding\n\tbased on semantic and phonological similarity and that a rule-based\n\troute is not necessary to account for past tense inflection.},\n keywords = {Humans, Linguistics, Semantics, 12127502},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Ramscar, M."],"key":"Ramscar2002","id":"Ramscar2002","bibbaseid":"ramscar-theroleofmeaningininflectionwhythepasttensedoesnotrequirearule-2002","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Humans","Linguistics","Semantics","12127502"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"keywords":["humans","linguistics","semantics","12127502"],"search_terms":["role","meaning","inflection","past","tense","require","rule","ramscar"],"title":"The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule.","year":2002}