The state of emergentism in second language acquisition

Second Language Research

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 95-128

  Gregg, Kevin R ^a  

^a Momoyama Gakuin University   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042602737     PISSN: 02676583     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0267658303sr213oa     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Allen, J. and Seidenberg, M. S. 1999: The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In Mac Whinney (pp. 115-151).
2. Ariew, A. 1999: Innateness is canalization: in defense of a developmental account of innateness. In Hardcastle, V. G., editor, Where biology meets psychology: philosophical essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 117-138.
3. Bates, E., Thal, D. and Marchman, V. 1991: Symbols and syntax: a Darwinian approach to language development. In Krasnegor, N. A., Rumbaugh, D. M., Schiefelbusch, R. L. and Studdert-Kennedy, M., editors, Biological and behavioral determinants of language development. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 29-66.
4. Berwick, R. C. 1998: Language evolution and the minimalist program. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Knight, C., editors, Approaches to the evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 320-340.
5. Bickerton, D. 1995: Language and human behavior. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
6. Bloom, P. 2000: How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Bloom, P. 2002: Mindreading, communication and the learning of names for things. Mind and Language 17, 37-54.
8. Carey, S. 1978: The child as word-learner. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. and Miller, G. A., editors, Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 264-293.
9. Carroll, S. E. 1995: The hidden dangers of computer modelling: remarks on Sokolik and Smith's connectionist learning model of French gender. Second Language Research 11, 193-205.
10. Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N. 1999: Connectionist natural language processing: the state of the art. Cognitive Science 23, 417-437.
11. Clark, A. 1993: Associative engines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Cowie, F. 1999: What's within?: nativism reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Croft, W. 2000: Parts of speech as typological universals and as language particular categories. In Vogel, P. M. and Comrie, B., editors, Approaches to the typology of word classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65-102.
14. Croft, W. 2001: Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Cummins, R. 1983: The nature of psychological explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Deacon, T. 1997: The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.
17. Deane, P. D. 1992: Grammar in mind and brain: explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
18. Dienes, Z., Altmann, G. T. M. and Gao, S.-J. 1999: Mapping across domains without feedback: a neural network model of transfer of implicit knowledge. Cognitive Science 23, 53-82.
19. Ellis, N. C. 1996: Analyzing language sequence in the sequence of language acquisition: some comments on Major and Ioup. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 361-368.
20. Ellis, N. C. 1998: Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning 48, 631-664.
21. Ellis, N. C. 1999: Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19, 22-42.
22. Ellis, N. C. 2002a: Frequency effects in language processing: a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-188.
23. Ellis, N. C. 2002b: Reflections on frequency effects in language acquisition: a response to commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 297-339.
24. Ellis, N. C. in press: Connectionist learning, chunking and construction grammar: the emergence of second language structure. To appear in Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., editors, Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
25. Ellis, N. C. and Schmidt, R. 1997: Morphology and longer distance dependencies: laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 145-171.
26. Ellis, N. C. and Schmidt, R. 1998: Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 307-336.
27. Elman, J. L. 1990: Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14, 179-211.
28. Elman, J. L. 1991: Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks and grammatical structure. Machine Learning 7, 195-225.
29. Elman, J. L. 1993: Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition 48, 71-99.
30. Elman, J. L. 1998: Generalization, simple recurrent networks and the emergence of structure. In Gernsbacher, M. and Derry, S., editors, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
31. Elman, J. L. 1999: The emergence of language: a conspiracy theory. In Mac Whinney (pp. 1-27).
32. Eubank, L. and Gregg, K. R. 1995: ‘Et in amygdala ego’? UG, (S)LA and neurobiology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 35-57.
33. Fodor, J. A. 1974: Special sciences. Synthese 28, 97-115.(Reprinted in his RePresentations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.) (Reprinted in his Re Presentations. Cambridge, M.A. MIT Press
34. Fodor, J. A. 1983: The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Fodor, J. A. 1984: Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51, 23-43.(Reprinted in his A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.)
36. Fodor, J. A. 1998: In critical condition: polemical essays on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Fodor, J. A. 2000: The mind does not work that way; the scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Fodor, J. A. 2001: Doing without what's within: Fiona Cowie's critique of nativism. Mind 110, 99-148.
39. French, R. M. 1999: Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3, 128-135.
40. Gibson, E. 1992: on the adequacy of the competition model. Language 68, 812-830.
41. Gold, I. and Stoljar, D. 1999: A neuron doctrine in the philosophy of neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 809-869.
42. Jackendoff, R. 1999: Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3, 272-279.
43. Lachter, J. and Bever, T. G. 1988: The relation between linguistic structure and associative theories of language learning: a constructive critique of some connectionist learning models. In Pinker, S. and Mehler, J., editors, Connectionism and symbols. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 195-247.
44. Laurence, S. and Margolis, E. 2001: The poverty of the stimulus argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 217-276.
45. Lewis, J. D. and Elman, J. L. 2002: Learnability and the statistical structure of language: poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Skarabela, B., et al., editors, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 359-370.
46. Lieberman, P. 1984: The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Lieberman, P. 1991: Uniquely human: the evolution of speech, thought and selfless behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Ling, C. X. and Marinov, M. 1993: Answering the connectionist challenge: a symbolic model of learning the past tenses of English verbs. Cognition 49, 235-290.
49. McLaughlin, B. P. and Warfield, T. A. 1994: The allure of connectionism reexamined. Synthese 101, 364-400.
50. MacWhinney, B., editor, 1999: The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
51. MacWhinney, B. 2000: Emergence from what? Comments on Sabbagh & Gelman. Journal of Child Language 27, 727-733.
52. MacWhinney, B. and Leinbach, J. 1991: Implementations are not conceptualizations: revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40, 121-157.
53. Marcus, G. F. 1998a: Can connectionism save constructivism? Cognition 66, 153-182.
54. Marcus, G. F. 1998b: Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology 37, 243-282.
55. Marcus, G. F. 2001: The algebraic mind; integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
56. Marinov, M. 1993: on the spuriousness of the symbolic/subsymbolic distinction. Minds and Machines 3, 253-270.
57. O’Grady, W. 1987: Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58. O’Grady, W. 1999: Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 621-633.
59. O’Grady, W. 2001: Language acquisition and language loss. Plenary address given at the Pacific Rim Second Language Forum (PacSLRF), University of Hawaii at Manoa, October.
60. O’Grady, W. 2003: The radical middle: nativism without universal grammar. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., editors, Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
61. Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. 1990: Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 707-784.
62. Pinker, S. and Prince, A. 1988: on language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73-193.
63. Putnam, H. 1975: The ‘Innateness Hypothesis’ and explanatory models in linguistics. In Stich, S. P., editor, Innate ideas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 133-144.(Originally published in Synthèse 17 (1967), 12-22.)
64. Pylyshyn, Z. 1984: Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Quartz, S. R. 1993: Neural networks, nativism and the plausibility of constructivism. Cognition 48, 223-242.
66. Rey, G. 1997: Contemporary philosophy of mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
67. Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. 1986: on learning the past tense of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E., editors, Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 272-326.
68. Sampson, G. 1997: Educating Eve: the ‘language instinct’ debate. London: Cassell.
69. Sampson, G. 2001: Empirical linguistics. London: Continuum.
70. Samuels, R. 1998: What brains won’t tell us about the mind: a critique of the neurobiological argument against representational nativism. Mind and Language 13, 548-570.
71. Schmidt, R. 1994: Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. C., editor, Implicit and explicit learning of language. London: Academic Press, 165-209.
72. Schwartz, B. D. 1999: Let's make up your mind: ‘Special nativist’ perspectives on language, modularity of mind and nonnative language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 635-655.
73. Segal, G. 1996: The modularity of theory of mind. In Carruthers, P. and Smith, P. K., editors, Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141-157.
74. Shavlik, J. W., Mooney, R. J. and Towell, G. G. 1991: Symbolic and neural learning algorithms: an experimental comparison. Machine Learning 6, 111-143.
75. Smolensky, P. 1988: The proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, 1-74.
76. Sokolik, M. E. and Smith, M. E. 1992: Assignment of gender to French nouns in primary and secondary language: a connectionist model. Second Language Research 8, 39-58.
77. Stich, S. P. 1994: The virtues, challenges and implications of connectionism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45, 1047-1058.
78. Tienson, J. 1991: Introduction. In Horgan, T. and Tienson, J., editors, Connectionism and the philosophy of mind. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1-29.