Abstract:Does knowledge of language consist of mentally-represented rules? Rumelhart and McClelland have described a connectionist (parallel distributed processing) model of the acquisition of the past tense in English which successfully maps many stems onto their past tense forms, both regular (walk/walked) and irregular (go/went), and which mimics some of the errors and sequences of development of children. Yet the model contains no explicit rules, only a set of neuronstyle units which stand for trigrams of phonetic features of the stem, a set of units which stand for trigrams of phonetic features of the past form, and an array of connections between the two sets of units whose strengths are modified during learning. Rumelhart and McClelland conclude that linguistic rules may be merely convenient approximate fictions and that the real causal processes in language use and acquisition must be characterized as the transfer of activation levels among units and the modification of the weights of their connections. We analyze both the linguistic and the developmental assumptions of the model in detail and discover that (1) it cannot represent certain words, (2) it cannot learn many rules, (3) it can learn rules found in no human language, (4) it cannot explain morphological and phonological regularities, (5) it cannot explain the differences between irregular and regular forms, (6) it fails at its assigned task of mastering the past tense of English, (7) it gives an incorrect explanation for two developmental phenomena: stages of overregularization of irregular forms such as bringed, and the appearance of doubly-marked forms such as ated and (8) it gives accounts of two others (infrequent overregularization of verbs ending in t/d, and the order of acquisition of different irregular subclasses) that are indistinguishable from those of rule-based theories. In addition, we show how many failures of the model can be attributed to its connectionist architecture. We conclude that connectionists' claims about the dispensability of rules in explanations in the psychology of language must be rejected, and that, on the contrary, the linguistic and developmental facts provide good evidence for such rules.

Jackendoff's Parallel Architecture - A New Perspective for Language Study

A Constructional Approach to Grammar

The Tripartite Framework and Conceptual Semantics

A Review on Jackendoff’s Language,Consciousness,Culture:Essays on Mental Structure:A Scientific Inquiry into Language and Cognition

Neural Generative Models and the Parallel Architecture of Language: A Critical Review and Outlook

Compositionality in a Parallel Architecture for Language Processing

A multimodal parallel architecture: A cognitive framework for multimodal interactions

Invariants in c U p-Geometry

Syntactic Variation in Reduced Registers Through the Lens of the Parallel Architecture

Parallel Learning - A New Framework for Machine Learning

Syntactic Parallelism and the Co-Production of Syntactic Units in Mandarin Chinese

Towards a neural architecture of language: Deep learning versus logistics of access in neural architectures for compositional processing

Bare Phrase Structure, Label-Less Trees, and Specifier-Less Syntax. is Minimalism Becoming a Dependency Grammar?

Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach

A Comparative Study of Cognitive and Generative Constructional Theories:With Special Reference to Construction Grammar and First Phase Syntax

On Classification of the extremal contraction from a smooth fourfold

A Paradigm Change for Formal Syntax: Computational Algorithms in the Grammar of English

Parallel Learning: a Perspective and a Framework

A New Research on the Principle of Parallel and General Comparison

What artificial grammar learning reveals about the neurobiology of syntax

On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition