Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 309–354

Chapter 9
Agreement Groups and dualistic syntactic processing

| ELTE University

This chapter discusses the dualistic characteristics of the Agreement Groups (AG) model of linguistic processing and language acquisition, a usage-based distributional approach building on cognitive mechanisms for storing groups of similar utterances in memory, and mechanisms for mapping utterances onto such groups. AGs, i.e. groups of minimally differing utterances, provide a means for processing novel sequences. Furthermore, AGs may facilitate categorisation (lexical/syntactic, semantic), and might serve as the foundations for ‘real’ agreement relations. Longer sequences involve a ‘coverage’ mechanism that processes utterance fragments. I point out three inherently dualistic components of AG processing – familiar/novel utterances, groups/group-combinations, and continuous/discontinuous fragments – that may be relevant for linguistic modelling, and indicate convergences with other fields of research.

Keywords: cognitive/computer modelling, distributional grouping, syntactic mapping mechanisms, usage-based analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Agreement groups
    • 1.2Agreement groups coverage
  • 2.Inherent dualities of the AG model
    • 2.1Duality 1: Familiar versus novel utterances
    • 2.2Duality 2: Direct mapping onto groups versus onto combinations of groups
    • 2.3Duality 3: Continuous vs. discontinuous fragments
  • 3.Theoretical implications for linguistic modelling
    • 3.1Familiar-novel ‘continuum’
    • 3.2Groups and group combinations: A dualistic parsing mechanism
    • 3.3Discontinuity enhances processing potential
  • 4.AGs and cognitive processing
    • 4.1Usage-based generalisations
    • 4.2Categorisation
    • 4.3Errors
    • 4.4Discourse cues for shaping AGs
    • 4.5Time course of language acquisition
    • 4.6AGs as constructions
  • 5.AGs beyond syntax
    • 5.1Morphology
    • 5.2Analogical reasoning
    • 5.3Concept representation
    • 5.4Language evolution
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.09dri
References

References

Babarczy, A.
2006 The development of negation in Hungarian child language. Lingua, 116, 377–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahlmann, G., & Friederici, A. D.
2006 Hierarchical and linear sequence processing: Anelectrophysiological exploration of two different grammar types. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(11), 1829–1842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D.
2008 Stored Word Sequences in Language Learning. Psychological Science 19(3), 241–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartha, P.
2019 Analogy and Analogical Reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition). [URL]
Bates, E.
1999 Plasticity, localization and language development. In S. Broman, & J. M. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (214–253). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
2013 Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
1990 Language and species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Catastrophic evolution: the case for a single step from protolanguage to full human language. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: social and cognitive bases (341–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R.
1973 A first language. The early stages. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Th., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
2003 A constructio based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., Misyak, J. B., & Tomblin, J.
2009 Statistical learning of nonadjacencies predicts on-line processing of long-distance dependencies in natural language. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 31(31).Google Scholar
Cowan, N.
2000 The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E.
2005 Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
2008 Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drienkó, L.
2012 Agreement groups analysis of mother-child discourse. Talk presented at the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, King’s College London , UK, 10–12th July 2012.
2013a Distributional cues for language acquisition: a cross-linguistic agreement groups analysis. Poster presentation for the 11th International Symposium of Psycholinguistics , Tenerife, Spain 20–23 March, 2013.
2013b Agreement groups coverage of mother-child language. Talk presented at the Child Language Seminar , Manchester, UK, 23–25 June 2013.
2013c Agreement groups coverage of Hungarian mother-child language. Poster presentation for the 11th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian . 29–31 August 2013, Piliscsaba, Hungary.
2014 Agreement groups analysis of mother-child discourse. In G. Rundblad, A. Tytus, O. Knapton & C. Tang (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (52–67). London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. ISSN 2046-9144. [URL]
2015 Discontinuous coverage of English mother-child speech. Talk presented at the Budapest Linguistics Conference , 18–20 June 2015, Budapest, Hungary.
2016a Agreement groups coverage of English mother-child utterances for modelling linguistic generalisations. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD 4(3), 113–158.Google Scholar
2016b Discovering utterance fragment boundaries in small unsegmented texts. In A. Takács, V. Varga, & V. Vincze (Eds.), XII. Magyar Számítógépes Nyelvészeti Konferencia (273–281). (12th Hungarian Computational Linguistics Conference). ISBN: 978-963-306-450-4. [URL]
2017a Agreement groups processing of context-free utterances: coverage, structural precision, and category information Talk presented at the 2nd Budapest Linguistics Conference , 1–3 June 2017, Budapest, Hungary. Online:[URL]
2017b Largest chunks as short text segmentation strategy: a cross-linguistic study. In A. Wallington, A. Foltz, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 6th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (273–292). [URL]
2018a Largest-Chunk strategy for syllable-based segmentation. Language and Cognition 10(3), 391–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b Analogous sequence processing in Agreement Groups and Discrete Combinatorial Neuronal Assemblies: The regulatory role of category information. Draft available: [URL]
2019 Word-based largest chunks for Agreement Groups processing: cross-linguistic observations. Talk for the Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) Conference , 17–18 October 2019. Lublin, Poland.
(2020) The effects of semantic category information on Agreement Groups syntactic processing. Talk for the UK Cognitive Linguistic Conference, University of Birmingham, 25-29 July, 2020.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
2006 Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J.
1988 The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finch, S., Chater, N., & Redington, M.
1995 Acquiring syntactic information from distributional statistics. In J. P. Levy, D. Bairaktaris, J. A. Bullinaria, & P. Cairns (Eds.) Connectionist models of memory and language (229–242). UCL Press: London.Google Scholar
Ganger, J., & Brent, M. R.
2004 Reexamining the Vocabulary Spurt. Developmental Psychology 40(4), 621–632. DOI logo. PMID 15238048.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 The Nature of Generalization in Language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A.
1987 The development of categorization in the second year and its relations to other cognitive and linguistic developments. Child Development, 58, 1523–1531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Thelen, E.
2004 U-Shaped Changes in Behavior: A Dynamic Systems Perspective. Journal of Cognition and Development 5(1), 11–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S.
1951 Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1952 Discourse analysis. Language 28(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1999 Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 272–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, G. R.
1973 Grammatical word classes: A learning process and its simulation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 7, l–41.Google Scholar
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D. I.
1996 Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (265–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 167–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M.
2003 Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd Edition. Vol. 2: The Database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A.
1956 The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T. H.
2003 Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90(1), 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. M.
1997 Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Montes, R.
1987 Secuencias de clarificación en conversaciones con niños. Morphe, 3–4. Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar
Montes, R. G.
1992 Achieving understanding: Repair mechanisms in mother–child conversations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L.
1990 Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
1979 Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L.
2016 A gradualist scenario for language evolution: precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Front. Psychol. 7, 1714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Réger, Z.
1986 The functions of imitation in child language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S.
1998 Distributional Information: A Powerful Cue for Acquiring Syntactic Categories. Cognitive Science 22(4), 425–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohde, H., & Frank, M. C.
2014 Markers of topical discourse in child-directed speech. Cognitive Sciene 38(8), 1634–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P.
2012 Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sidtis, J. J., Sidtis, D. V., Dhawan, V., & Eidelberg, D.
2018 Switching Language Modes: Complementary Brain Patterns for Formulaic and Propositional Language. Brain connectivity, 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
St. Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M. H.
2010 Learning grammatical categories from distributional cues: Flexible frames for language acquisition. Cognition 116(3), 341–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K., & Lieven, E.
2009 Lexically Restricted Utterances in Russian, German, and English Child-Directed Speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 75–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S.
1982 Ancestral and descendent behaviours: The case of U-shaped behavioural growth. In T. G. Bever (Ed.), Regressions in mental development: Basic phenomena and theories (191–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F.
2001 The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. Journal Child Language 281, 127–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2009 Formulaic and novel language in a ‘dual process’ model of language competence: evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In R. L. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language: Volume 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional applications (151–176). Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R., Steels, L., Beuls, K., & Wellens, P.
2012 Fluid construction grammar: the new kid on the block. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL ’12). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 63–68.Google Scholar
Wang, H., & Mintz, T. H.
2010 From Linear Sequences to Abstract Structures: Distributional Information in Infant-direct Speech. In J. Chandlee, K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings Supplement of the 34th Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R., Sandbank, B., Onnis, L., & Edelman, S.
2010 An empirical generative framework for computational modeling of language acquisition. Journal Child Language, 37, 671–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waterfall, H. R., & Edelman, S.
2009 The neglected universals: Learnability constraints and discourse cues. Behavioral & Brain Sciiences, 32, 471–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisleder, A., & Waxman, S. R.
2010 What’s in the input? Frequent frames in child-directed speech offer distributional cues to grammatical categories in Spanish and English. Journal Child Language 37(5), 1089–108. Epub. 2009 Aug 24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar