Linguistic Rule Generalisation Creates the Same Distributional Structure That Feeds It
Bibliographic 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".