Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:05:04.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistics, cognitive psychology, and the Now-or-Never bottleneck

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Ansgar D. Endress  and
Roni Katzir
Ansgar D. Endress
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, United Kingdomansgar.endress.1@city.ac.uk
Roni Katzir
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel. rkatzir@post.tau.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christiansen & Chater (C&C)'s key premise is that “if linguistic information is not processed rapidly, that information is lost for good” (sect. 1, para. 1). From this “Now-or-Never bottleneck” (NNB), C&C derive “wide-reaching and fundamental implications for language processing, acquisition and change as well as for the structure of language itself” (sect. 2, para. 10). We question both the premise and the consequentiality of its purported implications.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Börschinger, B. & Johnson, M. (2011) A particle filter algorithm for Bayesian word segmentation. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, Canberra, Australia, ed. Mollá, D. & Martinez, D., pp. 10–18.Google Scholar
Carey, S. & Bartlett, E. (1978) Acquiring a single word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 15:17–29.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 31(05):489–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, J. L. (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14(2):179–211.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D. & Potter, M. C. (2014b) Something from (almost) nothing: Buildup of object memory from forgettable single fixations. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 76:2413–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:429–92.Google Scholar
Frank, M., Goldwater, S., Griffiths, T. & Tenenbaum, J. (2010) Modeling human performance in statistical word segmentation. Cognition 117:107–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Departments of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106:1126–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Major, G. & Tank, D. (2004) Persistent neural activity: Prevalence and mechanisms. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14(6):675–84.Google Scholar
Markson, L. & Bloom, P. (1997) Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature 385:813–15.Google Scholar
McCauley, S. M. & Christiansen, M. H. (2011) Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, July 2011. pp. 1619–24, ed. Carlson, L. A., Hölscher, C. & Shipley, T. F.. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P. & Berwick, R. C. (2009) The proper treatment of language acquisition and change in a population setting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:10124–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulman, S. G. (1986) Grammars, parsers, and memory limitations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(3):197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1985) Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors 27:395–408.Google Scholar
Seitz, A. R. & Watanabe, T. (2003) Psychophysics: Is subliminal learning really passive? Nature 422:36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, T., Náñez, J. E. & Sasaki, Y. (2001) Perceptual learning without perception. Nature 413:844–48.Google Scholar