storage and computation

[Fullmer, Joseph]

Along the lines of "goed" for "went", the other day my little niece was
playing with a top, and her little brother wanted a turn.  So her mother (my
sister) told her she had three more tries.  After she 'did it' once, I asked
her how many turns she had left. She replied, "This is my two-th turn and
after that I have one more."  She used rule generalization to generate
"two-th" as the ordinal for "two".  I wasn't sure how to elicit whether she
would say "One-th" for "first" or if she would 'retrieve' "first".  After
her second turn, I asked her what turn she was on trying to elicit whether
she would get "three-th" for "third", but she answered "it's my last turn".

Because the higher ordinal forms are more iconic (similarity in form), and
the iconic relationship repeats several times, a rule is easily generated.
On the other hand, the relationship of "one" to "first" and "two" to
"second" is not apparent from the forms, and must be 'stored and retrieved'
to get it right.  Looks like rule-generalization is winning out here.
(although in order to even generalize a rule in the first place, retrieval
must be used.)

Also of interest is that most languages follow this pattern of one and two
having constructive relationships with their ordinals, while the higher ones
have a conformative relationship.  For a great explanation of this, see John
S. Robertson: The History of Tense / Aspect / Mood / Voice in the Mayan
Verbal Complex.  He analogously relates C.S. Peirce's Icon, Index, and
Symbol to Confomative, Reciprocal, and Constructive.  Less marked categories
of 2^m grammatical paradigms tend to have more constructive relationships
(must use storage and retrieval), whereas more marked categories tend to
have conformative relationships (able to use rule-generalizations).  So, if
we place "go" / "gyrate" in a 2^m paradigm with the present and simple past,
we get

go     / went  (*constructive relationship)
gyrate / gyrated  (*conformative relationship)

Because gyrate / is much more highly marked (much more narrow meaning and
application) we would expect it to have more conformative relationships than
the less-marked go / went, and this is just what we see.  According to the
law of inverse proportionality (more breadth = less depth, less breadth =
more depth)  less-marked forms will have a much greater external
manifestation (e.g. frequency of occurence, range of reference, and even
length of words in many cases).  There is also a law of direct
proportionality, which bears on the topic, but i think i am growing
long-winded, so will stop.  But I would highly recommend the first two
chapters (only 45 pages) of Robertson's book for all linguists (no knowledge
of Mayan languages required) and the entire book for Mayanists.

In any case, I believe the assesment that children rely a great deal on both
rule-generalization and storage-and-retrieval is correct.  With less-marked
forms, there will be a need for more storage and retrieval, since
relationships among forms will be more constructive, whereas with
more-marked forms, rule-generalization will be more heavily relied on, since
form relationships will be more conformative.  In the case of "goed" instead
of "went" and "two-th" instead of "second" it would seem to me that a child
is actually in the experimentation stage, such that he/she is trying to
determine whether the form is conformative or constructive.  So, the child
applies the expected conformative rule, and depending on the response
(correction or acceptance) the form is reinforced as to which type it is,
and how to appropriately deal with it (should I store this form for
remembering later, or will the rule do?)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics
> [mailto:FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU]On Behalf Of Tony A. Wright
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 10:34 AM
> To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
> Subject: Re: storage and computation
>
>
> John Myhill wrote:
>
> > I've been quite interested to read here about specific findings
> regarding how
> > people learn language. As I have been observing the linguistic
> development
> > of my now 6-year-old daughter, I have been coming to the conclusion that
> > anyone who thinks that children develop their language by
> relying more on
> > rule generalization than on retrival either doesn't have children or
> > doesn't pay any attention to what they say.
>
> I have spent plenty of time with children who convince me that they rely
> a great deal on both rule generalization AND retrieval.
>
> Children notoriously regularize high-occurrence irregular verbs,
> i.e., "goed"
> for "went".  Why would they do this if they were primarily retrieving?
> Why do children exhibit developmental patterns in syntax that are
> nothing like
> adult speech?  Are their incipient retrieval capacities too limited and
> increase with age?
>
> --Tony Wright <twright at intersatx.net>
>