research-article

Free access

Item-based constructions and the logical problem

Author:

Brian MacWhinneyAuthors Info & Claims

PMHLA '05: Proceedings of the Workshop on Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition

Pages 53 - 68

Published: 29 June 2005 Publication History

Abstract

The logical problem of language is grounded on arguments from poverty of positive evidence and arguments from poverty of negative evidence. Careful analysis of child language corpora shows that, if one assumes that children learn through item-based constructions, there is an abundance of positive evidence. Arguments regarding the poverty of negative evidence can also be addressed by the mechanism of conservative item-based learning. When conservativism is abandoned, children can rely on competition, cue construction, monitoring and probabilistic identification to derive information from positive data to recover from overgeneralization.

References

[1]

Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R.,&Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning in linguistic and nonlinguistic domains. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 359--380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[2]

Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533--581.

[3]

Berwick, R. (1987). Parsability and learnability. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[4]

Bohannon, N., MacWhinney, B.,&Snow, C. (1990). No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom. Developmental Psychology, 26, 221--226.

[5]

Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[6]

Bowerman, M. (1988). The "no negative evidence" problem. In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73--104). London: Blackwell.

[7]

Brown, R.,&Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11--54). New York: Wiley.

[8]

Buttery, P. (2004). A quantitative evaluation of naturalistic models of language acquisition; the efficiency of the Triggering Learning Algorithm compared to a Categorial Grammar Learner. Coling 2004, 1--8.

[9]

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

[10]

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.

[11]

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.

[12]

Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[13]

Chomsky, N.,&Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 1--32). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

[14]

Crain, S.,&Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63 No. 3, 522--543.

[15]

De Villiers, J., Roeper, T.,&Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long distance rules. In L. Frazier&J. De Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

[16]

Elbers, L.,&Wijnen, F. (1993). Effort, production skill, and language learning. In C. Ferguson, L. Menn&C. Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development (pp. 337--368). Timonium, MD: York.

[17]

Elman, J. L., Hare, M.,&McRae, K. (2005). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In M. Tomasello&D. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[18]

Fodor, J.,&Crain, S. (1987). Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[19]

Gold, E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447--474.

[20]

Hauser, M., Chomsky, N.,&Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569--1579.

[21]

Hausser, R. (1999). Foundations of computational linguistics: Man-machine communication in natural language. Berlin: Springer.

Digital Library

[22]

Hopcroft, J.,&Ullman, J. (1979). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

[23]

Horning, J. J. (1969). A study of grammatical inference: Stanford University, Computer Science Department.

[24]

Hornstein, N.,&Lightfoot, D. (1981). Explanation in linguistics: the logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longmans.

[25]

Jain, S., Osherson, D., Royer, J.,&Sharma, A. (1999). Systems that learn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[26]

Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development, and origin. London: George Allen and Unwin.

[27]

Kanazawa, M. (1998). Learnable classes of categorial grammars. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Digital Library

[28]

Kawamoto, A. (1994). One system or two to handle regulars and exceptions: How time-course of processing can inform this debate. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan&G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 389--416). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[29]

Kimball, J. (1973). The formal theory of grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[30]

Lewis, J. D.,&Elman, J. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.

[31]

Li, P.,&MacWhinney, B. (1996). Cryptotype, overgeneralization, and competition: A connectionist model of the learning of English reversive prefixes. Connection Science, 8, 3--30.

[32]

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J.,&Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676--703.

[33]

MacWhinney, B. (1975). Pragmatic patterns in child syntax. Stanford Papers And Reports on Child Language Development, 10, 153--165.

[34]

MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43, Whole no. 1, pp. 1--123.

[35]

MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language acquisition: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 73--136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[36]

MacWhinney, B. (1987a). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249--308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[37]

MacWhinney, B. (1987b). Toward a psycholinguistically plausible parser. In S. Thomason (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.

[38]

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[39]

MacWhinney, B. (2005). Language evolution and human development. In D. Bjorklund&A. Pellegrini (Eds.), Child development and evolutionary psychology. New York: Academic.

[40]

MacWhinney, B.,&Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition, 29, 121--157.

[41]

MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R.,&McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255--277.

[42]

Maratsos, M., Kuczaj, S. A., Fox, D. E.,&Chalkley, M. A. (1979). Some empirical studies in the acquisition of transformational relations: Passives, negatives, and the past tense. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Children's language and communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[43]

Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 53--85.

[44]

Merriman, W. (1999). Competition, attention, and young children's lexical processing. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 331--358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[45]

Miikkulainen, R. (1993). Subsymbolic natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Digital Library

[46]

Miikkulainen, R.,&Mayberry, M. R. (1999). Disambiguation and grammar as emergent soft constraints. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 153--176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[47]

Newport, E., Gleitman, H.,&Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and noneffects of maternal speech style. In C. Snow (Ed.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[48]

O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

[49]

Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1980). Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

[50]

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.

[51]

Plunkett, K.,&Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to system building. Cognition, 49, 21--69.

[52]

Pullum, G.,&Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 9--50.

[53]

Reich, P. (1969). The finiteness of natural language. Language, 45, 831--843.

[54]

Sagae, K., MacWhinney, B.,&Lavie, A. (2004). Adding syntactic annotations to transcripts of parent-child dialogs. In LREC 2004 (pp. 1815--1818). Lisbon: LREC.

[55]

Sakas, W.,&Fodor, J. (2001). The structural triggers learner. In S. Bertolo (Ed.), Language acquisition and learnability. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[56]

Saxton, M. (1997). The Contrast Theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139--161.

[57]

Shinohara, T. (1994). Rich classes inferable from positive data: length-bounded elementary formal systems. Information and Computation, 108, 175--186.

Digital Library

[58]

Taraban, R.,&McClelland, J. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 608--631.

[59]

Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 156--163.

[60]

Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23--79.

[61]

Wexler, K.,&Hamburger, H. (1973). On the insufficiency of surface data for the learning of transformational languages. In K. Hintikka (Ed.), Approaches to natural language. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel.

[62]

Wilson, B.,&Peters, A. M. (1988). What are you cookin' on a hot? Movement Constraints in the Speech of a Three-Year-Old Blind Child. Language, 64, No. 2, 249--273.

[63]

Wolfe Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39--70.

Cited By

Bod RButtery PVillavicencio AKorhonen A(2007)A linguistic investigation into unsupervised DOPProceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Acquisition10.5555/1629795.1629796(1-8)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2007
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1629795.1629796

Item-based constructions and the logical problem
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
2. Hardware
  1. Power and energy
    1. Power estimation and optimization

Recommendations

A Genre-Based Item-Item Collaborative Filtering: Facing the Cold-Start Problem
ICSCA '19: Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications

Recommender System is a technique which is used to recommend an item or product to a user based on the user's preference'. Collaborative filtering is an approach that is vastly used in recommender systems. Item-item-based collaborative filtering is a ...
Userrank for item-based collaborative filtering recommendation

With the recent explosive growth of the Web, recommendation systems have been widely accepted by users. Item-based Collaborative Filtering (CF) is one of the most popular approaches for determining recommendations. A common problem of current item-based ...
Item-based collaborative ranking

PreNIt is the first item-based approach for neighborhood collaborative ranking.PreNit models the users choice contexts as bipartite networks with labeled edges.PreNit uses a novel ranking algorithm in bipartite networks, called MemoRank.MemoRank models ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings

PMHLA '05: Proceedings of the Workshop on Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition

June 2005

108 pages

Program Chair:
William Gregory Sakas
City University of New York, USA

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 29 June 2005

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
198
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)98
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bod RButtery PVillavicencio AKorhonen A(2007)A linguistic investigation into unsupervised DOPProceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Acquisition10.5555/1629795.1629796(1-8)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2007
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1629795.1629796

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents