Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 9
Agreement Groups and dualistic syntactic processing

 | ELTE University
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.09dri
Abstract
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.
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
References (70)
References
Babarczy, A. 2006. The development of negation in Hungarian child language. Lingua, 116, 377–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. 2008. Stored Word Sequences in Language Learning. Psychological Science 19(3), 241–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A first language. The early stages. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Th., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. 2003. A constructio based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3), 437–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1988. The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ganger, J., & Brent, M. R. 2004. Reexamining the Vocabulary Spurt. Developmental Psychology 40(4), 621–632. . PMID 15238048.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28(1), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1999. Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 272–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, G. R. 1973. Grammatical word classes: A learning process and its simulation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 7, l–41.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 167–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. 2003. Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd Edition. Vol. 2: The Database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mintz, T. H. 2003. Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90(1), 91–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. M. 1997. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montes, R. 1987. Secuencias de clarificación en conversaciones con niños. Morphe, 3–4. Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montes, R. G. 1992. Achieving understanding: Repair mechanisms in mother–child conversations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Progovac, L. 2016. A gradualist scenario for language evolution: precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Front. Psychol. 7, 1714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Réger, Z. 1986. The functions of imitation in child language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 323–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. 1998. Distributional Information: A Powerful Cue for Acquiring Syntactic Categories. Cognitive Science 22(4), 425–469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohde, H., & Frank, M. C. 2014. Markers of topical discourse in child-directed speech. Cognitive Sciene 38(8), 1634–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R., & Edelman, S. 2009. The neglected universals: Learnability constraints and discourse cues. Behavioral & Brain Sciiences, 32, 471–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Drienkó, László
2024. Largest-chunking and group formation: Two basic strategies for a cognitive model of linguistic processing. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 10 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue