Any system can be described by a dual-route model

Pinker and Prince postulate a dual-route model of linguistic knowledge, in which a set of rules—follow a rule or consult a list of exceptions—only has to fit some cases, with the rest treated as exceptions. But any system's describable this way.

Pinker and Prince postulate a dual-route model of linguistic knowledge, according to which the ability to transform verbs into the past tense consists in either: 
  • "following a rule (add "-ed" to the verb—eg "guide" becomes "guided"), or
  • consulting a list of exceptions (e.g. "run" becomes "ran", "weep becomes wep"t, etc).
But any system can be described in this way, because a set of rules only has to fit some cases, with the rest being treated as exceptions.

Such an approach is "like saying that all of the observations in my experiment fit a particular hypothesis except the ones that I’ve decided to exclude (p.94)."
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
Connectionist networks can think without following rules
The Past-Tense Acquisition Model
Model doesn't argue against rule-based explanation
Any system can be described by a dual-route model
Connectionist models don't implement classical models
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip