Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41257265›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025

Linguistic Rule Generalisation Creates the Same Distributional Structure That Feeds It.

Elizabeth Pankratz, Jennifer Culbertson, Simon Kirby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth PankratzPsychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jennifer CulbertsonCentre for Language Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Simon KirbyCentre for Language Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial language learningBayesian reasoningfrequency distributionsrule generalisationurn model

Identifiers

PMID41257265
PMCPMC12622461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.