The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language

Author(s):  
Morten H. Christiansen ◽  
Nick Chater

AbstractMemory is fleeting. New material rapidly obliterates previous material. How, then, can the brain deal successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input? We argue that, to deal with this “Now-or-Never” bottleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible. This observation has strong implications for the nature of language processing: (1) the language system must “eagerly” recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each new representational level, the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system must deploy all available information predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with “Right-First-Time”; once the original input is lost, there is no way for the language system to recover. This is “Chunk-and-Pass” processing. Similarly, language learning must also occur in the here and now, which implies that language acquisition is learning to process, rather than inducing, a grammar. Moreover, this perspective provides a cognitive foundation for grammaticalization and other aspects of language change. Chunk-and-Pass processing also helps explain a variety of core properties of language, including its multilevel representational structure and duality of patterning. This approach promises to create a direct relationship between psycholinguistics and linguistic theory. More generally, we outline a framework within which to integrate often disconnected inquiries into language processing, language acquisition, and language change and evolution.

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 883-885
Author(s):  
JUBIN ABUTALEBI ◽  
HARALD CLAHSEN

One of the best-known claims from language acquisition research is that the capacity to learn languages is constrained by maturational changes, with particular time windows (aka ‘critical’ or ‘sensitive’ periods) better suited for language learning than others. Evidence for the critical period hypothesis (CPH) comes from a number of sources demonstrating that age is a crucial predictor for language attainment and that the capacity to learn language diminishes with age. To take just one example, a recent study by Hartshorne, Tenenbaum and Pinker (2018) identified a ‘sharply-defined critical period’ for grammar learning, and a steady decline thereafter, based on a very large dataset (of 2/3 million English Speakers) that allowed them to disentangle critical-period effects from non-age factors (e.g., amount of experience) affecting grammatical performance. Other evidence for the CPH comes from research with individuals who were deprived of linguistic input during the critical period (Curtiss, 1977) and were consequently unable to acquire language properly. Moreover, neurobiological research has shown that critical periods affect the neurological substrate for language processing, specifically for grammar (Wartenburger, Heekeren, Abutalebi, Cappa, Villringer & Perani, 2003).


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Sales Sitompul

This study originated from cases of language disorders that occur in society in Pahae Julu district. Language is a need to interact, and humans have been blessed with Language Acquisition Device (LAD) or any language by god. However, if when speaking of someone impaired both LAD and language processing part of the brain, then the communication will not be smooth. The language disorders can happen to anyone. The purpose of this study is to reveal some kinds of language disorders, cases of language disorders and to find out the causes of language disorders experienced by the community in Pahae Julu. The method used in this research is descriptive research method type of case studies.


1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. M. Schlesinger

Recent years have witnessed a cognitivist reaction against previous views of language learning. It had been held that mere exposure to language is a sufficient condition for language acquisition, whether by hypothesis testing (Katz 1966) or through passive learning (Braine 1971). Symptomatic of this approach were experiments investigating the learning of grammar in which subjects were taught artificial miniature languages without meaning, either through making guesses and receiving feedback from the experimenter (e.g. Hunt 1965) or passively, just by listening (Braine 1971). Although no such claim was explicitly made, language learning was actually treated as if it occurred independently of cognitive development. This one-sided approach has since been corrected by the cognitivists as represented in particular by the Geneva school (Sinclair 1971), who stress the importance of general cognitive development in language acquisition. Experiments with artificial languages bear the imprint of this approach and now involve semantic referents of the linguistic symbols (e.g. Moeser & Bregman 1972, 1973).


2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Herschensohn

This article reexamines Bley-Vroman’s original (1990) and evolved (this issue) fundamental difference hypothesis that argues that differences in path and endstate of first language acquisition and adult foreign language learning result from differences in the acquisition procedure (i.e., language faculty and cognitive strategies, respectively). The evolved assessment of the theoretical and empirical developments of the past 20 years is taken into account with respect to Universal Grammar and parameters in generative theory and with respect to cognition and acquisition in data processing. This article supports the spirit of Bley-Vroman’s proposals in light of the discussion of three topics: pathway of acquisition, endstate age of acquisition effects, and language processing by monolinguals and bilinguals. I argue that the difference between child and adult language acquisition is, above all, quantitative not qualitative, a gradient continuum rather than a precipitous break.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riana Agustin Tindjabate

Child language acquisition is influenced by many factors including family factors. Chomsky theories on child language acquisition say that a child born with language skills that are hardwired in the brain. The system will work optimally with the development age of the child so that the child does not need others to help his language development. It is not fully accepted by other linguists because some people think that the parents are very instrumental factor in the development of children's language. This study focuses on the input of parents were given to children in linguistic through interaction and methods of reading the story.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piergiorgio Salvan ◽  
Tomoki Arichi ◽  
Diego Vidaurre ◽  
J Donald Tournier ◽  
Shona Falconer ◽  
...  

AbstractLanguage acquisition appears to rely at least in part on recruiting pre-existing brain structures. We hypothesized that the neural substrate for language can be characterized by distinct, non-trivial network properties of the brain, that modulate language acquisition early in development. We tested whether these brain network properties present at the normal age of birth predicted later language abilities, and whether these were robust against perturbation by studying infants exposed to the extreme environmental stress of preterm birth.We found that brain network controllability and integration predicted respectively phonological, ‘bottom-up’ and syntactical, ‘top-down’ language skills at 20 months, and that syntactical but not phonological functions were modulated by premature extrauterine life. These data show that the neural substrate for language acquisition is a network property present at term corrected age. These distinct developmental trajectories may be relevant to the emergence of social interaction after birth.


1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 1035-1036
Author(s):  
Friedemann Pulvermüller

True, there may be two language-processing systems, lexicon and syntax. However, could we not say more than that they are computationally and linguistically distinct? Where are they in the brain, why are they where they are, and how can their distinctness and functional properties be explained by biological principles? A brain model of language is necessary to answer these questions. One view is that two different types of corticocortical connections are most important for storing rules and their exceptions: short-range connections within the perisylvian language cortex and long-range connections between this region and other areas. Probabilities of neuroanatomical connections plus associative learning principles explain why different connection bundles specialize in rule storage versus exception learning. Linguistic issues related to language change and plural formation in German are addressed in closing.


Author(s):  
Giulia Bovolenta ◽  
Emma Marsden

Abstract There is currently much interest in the role of prediction in language processing, both in L1 and L2. For language acquisition researchers, this has prompted debate on the role that predictive processing may play in both L1 and L2 language learning, if any. In this conceptual review, we explore the role of prediction and prediction error as a potential learning aid. We examine different proposed prediction mechanisms and the empirical evidence for them, alongside the factors constraining prediction for both L1 and L2 speakers. We then review the evidence on the role of prediction in learning languages. We report computational modeling that underpins a number of proposals on the role of prediction in L1 and L2 learning, then lay out the empirical evidence supporting the predictions made by modeling, from research into priming and adaptation. Finally, we point out the limitations of these mechanisms in both L1 and L2 speakers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document