Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T01:47:52.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connecting Swedish Verb Forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Christer Johansson
Christer Johansson
Affiliation:
Department of Languages and Literature (ISL), Linguistics, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway. Email: christer@isl.uit.no
Get access

Extract

A connectionist back-propagation net is trained to learn a mapping between verb forms (infinitive, imperative, present tense) and past tense forms. A back-propagation network requires that a one-to-one mapping exists between input and output. Since Swedish past tense is characterized by choice between weak and strong forms this proves a hard task for the net. Examples are: nypte/nöp ‘pinched’, tvang/tvingade ‘forced’, where there is no obvious reason for preferring one form over the other. The task is still worth doing since regularities emerge in the net over time. The performance of the connectionist model is analysed and compared to previous results.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , June 1997 , pp. 3 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S. 1971. Nusvensk frekvensordbok - Frequency Dictionary of Present-Day Swedish. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic Theory and the Projection Problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 553–581.Google Scholar
Batali, D. J. 1994. Innate Biases and Critical Periods: Combining Evolution and Learning in the Acquisition of Syntax. Manuscript, paper delivered at Alife IV Workshop, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. 1987. Competition, Variation and Language Learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berko, J. 1958. The Child's Learning of English Morphology. Word 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. N. & Stanowich, L. 1988. The Issue of Negative Evidence: Adult Responses to Children's Language Errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Moder, C. L. 1983. Morphological Classes as Natural Categories. Language 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugherty, K. & Seidenberg, M. S. 1992. Rules or Connections? The Past Tense Revisited. Prog. Cogsci Conf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeteras, M. J., Post, K. N. & Snow, C. E. 1986. Feedback to First Language Learners: The Role of Repetitions and Clarification Question. Child Language 13, 273–292.Google Scholar
Elert, C.-C. 1970. Ljud och ord i svenskan. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elman, J. 1993. Learning and Development in Neural Networks: The Importance of Starting Small. Cognition 48, 71–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garten, C. 1988. Svenskans fonologi. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Hecht-Nielsen, R. 1987. Kolmogorov's Mapping Neural Network Existence Theorem. Int. Conf. on Neural Networks III (11-3). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Hecht-Nielsen, R. 1991. Neurocomputing. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hellberg, S. 1978. The Morphology of Present-Day Swedish: Word Inflection, Word Formation, Basic Dictionary. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J., Lockwood, A., Kemmerer, D., van Valin, R., Murphy, B. & Khalak, H. 1996. A Positron Emission Tomographic Study of Regular and Irregular Verb Morphology in English. Language 72(3), 451–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K. A. & Ulbaek, I. 1994. The Learning of the Past Tense of Danish Verbs; Language Learning in Neural Networks. Applied Linguistics 15 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, C. 1996a. Transmission of Language Parameters During the Years of Plague. Manuscript, paper delivered at the conference on Evolution of Human Language, April, 1-4, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Johansson, C. 1996b. Simulations of Emergence and Disappearance. Manuscript, paper delivered at the 12th workshop of the Language Origins Society, July, 11-15, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. & , Sahlquist, 1974. Starka verb i forvandling [Strong verbs in transformation]. Nusvenska studier, 44–84.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1972. Reports from Uppsala University Department of Linguistics. Uppsala: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Linell, P. & Jannische, M. 1980. Barns uttalsutveckling. Lund: Liber Laromedel.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1987. The Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Leinbach, J. 1989. Language Learning: Cues or Rules? Journal of Memory and Language 28, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, F. M., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. & Xu, F. 1992. Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. 1981. On Determining Developmental Stages n i Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. & Pappert, S. 1969. Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Movellan, J. R. & McClelland, J. L. 1993. Learning Continuous Probability Distributions with Symmetric Diffusion Networks. Cognitive Science 17, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallbo, R. 1992. Neuronal Selectivity Without Intermediate Cells. Lund University Cognitive Studies, Vol. 13. Lund: Department of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Pallbo, R. 1993. Visual Motion Detection Based on a Cooperative Neural Network Architechture. In Sandewall, E. & Jansson, C. G. (ed.), Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence - 93. IOS Press, pp. 193–201.Google Scholar
Penner, S. 1987. Parental Responses to Grammatical and Ungrammatical Child Utter-ences. Child Development 58, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: the New Science of Language and Mind: Allen Lane/Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. 1991. U-Shaped Learning and Frequency Effects in a MultiLayered perceptron: Implications for Child Language Acquisition. Cognition 38, 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. 1993. From Rote Learning to System Building: Acquiring Verb Morphology in Children and Connectionist Nets. Cognition 48, 21–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, K. & Sinha, C. 1991. Connectionism and Developmental Theory. Psykologisk Skriftserie 16.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In Rosen, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hilisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. 1986. On Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs. In Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. - II. Psychological and Biological Models, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhman, S. 1994. Two Hundred Years of “Scientificness” in Linguistics. Plenary lecture delivered to the VIII'th International Congress on Nordic and General Linguistics, Göteborg, Sweden, Aug. 16-22, 1993. Revised version. RUUL, 26. Uppsala: Department of Linguistics, pp. 74–83.Google Scholar