No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Linguistics, cognitive psychology, and the Now-or-Never bottleneck
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2016
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
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
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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation.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
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
Target article
The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language
Related commentaries (28)
Better late than Now-or-Never: The case of interactive repair phenomena
Conceptual short-term memory (CSTM) supports core claims of Christiansen and Chater
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages
Exploring some edges: Chunk-and-Pass processing at the very beginning, across representations, and on to action
Gestalt-like representations hijack Chunk-and-Pass processing
How long is now? The multiple timescales of language processing
Is Now-or-Never language processing good enough?
Language acquisition is model-based rather than model-free
Language processing is not a race against time
Linguistic representations and memory architectures: The devil is in the details
Linguistic structure emerges through the interaction of memory constraints and communicative pressures
Linguistics, cognitive psychology, and the Now-or-Never bottleneck
Many important language universals are not reducible to processing or cognition
Mechanisms for interaction: Syntax as procedures for online interactive meaning building
Memory limitations and chunking are variable and cannot explain language structure
Natural language processing and the Now-or-Never bottleneck
Neural constraints and flexibility in language processing
Now or … later: Perceptual data are not immediately forgotten during language processing
On the generalizability of the Chunk-and-Pass processing approach: Perspectives from language acquisition and music
Pro and con: Internal speech and the evolution of complex language
Processing cost and its consequences
Realizing the Now-or-Never bottleneck and Chunk-and-Pass processing with Item-Order-Rank working memories and masking field chunking networks
Reservoir computing and the Sooner-is-Better bottleneck
Socio-demographic influences on language structure and change: Not all learners are the same
The bottleneck may be the solution, not the problem
The ideomotor recycling theory for language
What gets passed in “Chunk-and-Pass” processing? A predictive processing solution to the Now-or-Never bottleneck
“Process and perish” or multiple buffers with push-down stacks?
Author response
Squeezing through the Now-or-Never bottleneck: Reconnecting language processing, acquisition, change, and structure