ABSTRACT
What kind of knowledge accounts for linguistic productivity? How is it acquired? For years, debate on these questions has focused on a seemingly obscure domain: inflectional morphology. On one side, theorists inspired by Rumelhart & McClelland’s classic error-driven learning model have sought to show how all morphological forms are the products of a single memory-based process, whereas the opposing theories have claimed that irregular forms are processed by qualitatively different mechanisms to rule-governed regulars. This review argues that while the main ideas put forward by Rumelhart & McClelland – that inflectional patterns are learned, and rule-like behaviour emerges from the distribution of forms – appear to be correct, the theory embodied in their model (and those following it) is incompatible with the discriminative nature of learning itself. An examination of the constraints error-driven learning mechanisms impose on theories of morphological processing – along with language learning and human communication itself – is presented.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).