ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025
Linguistic Rule Generalisation Creates the Same Distributional Structure That Feeds It.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Part of language's great expressivity comes from its users creating new forms by applying familiar rules to novel items. But linguistic rules aren't all created equal-some are more readily generalisable than others. In this paper, we focus on how rule generalisation is affected by certain properties of frequency distributions. In an artificial language learning experiment that asks adult learners to generalise using one of two suffixes, we find that they probability-match their input but slightly prefer whichever suffix they encountered with more low-frequency stems. Then with an urn model of learning, we show that previous explanations of generalisation that focus only on a distribution's type count or its skew fail to capture participants' behaviour-only the low-frequency preference yields convergent results. We model learners' behaviour in terms of rational Bayesian inference about how likely a rule is to apply to more word types than somebody has already encountered. Overall, we suggest that linguistic rule generalisation is a self-sustaining process: by creating novel and therefore low-frequency items, rule generalisation produces the very same distributional structure that feeds it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.