Relational Morphology: A Cousin of Construction Grammar

Do All Languages Share the Same Conceptual Structure?

In this work, we consider the views of three exponents of major areas of linguistics – Levelt (psycholinguistics), Jackendoff (theoretical linguistics), and Gil (field linguistics) – regarding the issue of the universality or not of the conceptual structure of languages. In Levelt’s view, during language production, the conceptual structure of the preverbal message is language-specific. In Jackendoff’s theoretical approach to language – his parallel architecture – there is a universal conceptual structure shared by all languages, in contradiction to Levelt’s view. In Gil’s work on Riau Indonesian, he proposes a conceptual structure that is quite different from that of English, adopted by Jackendoff as universal. We find no reason to disagree with Gil’s view. In this way, we take Gil’s work as vindicating Levelt’s view that during language production preverbal messages are encoded with different conceptual structures for different languages.

Morphology in a Parallel, Distributed, Interactive Architecture of Language Production

How do speakers produce novel words? This programmatic paper synthesizes research in linguistics and neuroscience to argue for a parallel distributed architecture of the language system, in which distributed semantic representations activate competing form chunks in parallel. This process accounts for both the synchronic phenomenon of paradigm uniformity and the diachronic process of paradigm leveling; i.e., the shaping or reshaping of relatively infrequent forms by semantically-related forms of higher frequency. However, it also raises the question of how leveling is avoided. A negative feedback cycle is argued to be responsible. The negative feedback cycle suppresses activated form chunks with unintended semantics or connotations and allows the speaker to decide when to begin speaking. The negative feedback cycle explains away much of the evidence for paradigmatic mappings, allowing more of the grammar to be described with only direct form-meaning mappings/constructions. However, there remains an important residue of cases for which paradigmatic mappings are necessary. I show that these cases can be accounted for by spreading activation down paradigmatic associations as the source of the activation is being inhibited by negative feedback. The negative feedback cycle provides a mechanistic explanation for several phenomena in language change that have so far eluded usage-based accounts. In particular, it provides a mechanism for degrammaticalization and affix liberation (e.g., the detachment of -holic from the context(s) in which it occurs), explaining how chunks can gain productivity despite occurring in a single fixed context. It also provides a novel perspective on paradigm gaps. Directions for future work are outlined.

Predicting syntactic structure

Prediction in language processing has been a topic of major interest in psycholinguistics for at least the last two decades, but most investigations focus on semantic rather than syntactic prediction. This review begins with a discussion of some influential models of parsing which assume that comprehenders have the ability to anticipate syntactic nodes, beginning with left-corner parsers and the garden-path model and ending with current information-theoretic approaches that emphasize online probabilistic prediction. We then turn to evidence for the prediction of specific syntactic forms, including coordinate clauses and noun phrases, verb arguments, and individual nouns, as well as studies that use morphosyntactic constraints to assess whether a specific semantic prediction has been made. The last section considers the implications of syntactic prediction for theories of language architecture and describes four avenues for future research.