Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence

Cognitive Science

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1007-1028

  Reali, Florencia ^a   Christiansen, Morten H ^a  

^a Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

Author keywords

Corpus analysis; Distributional information; Language acquisition; Neural networks; Poverty of stimulus

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645100090     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_28     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Baayen, R. H., Pipenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
2. Batali, J. (2002). The negotiation and acquisition of recursive grammars as a result of competition among examples. In E. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models (pp. 111-172). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bernstein-Ratner, N. (1984). Patterns of vowel modification in motherese. Journal of Child Language, 11, 557-578.
4. Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2004). The varying aims of linguistic theory. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Department of Linguistics, and University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics, College Park.
5. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111, 395-429.
6. Brighton, H. (2002). Compositional syntax from cultural transmission. Artificial Life, 8, 25-54.
7. Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 107-132). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
8. Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843-873.
9. Chen, S. F., & Goodman, J. (1999). An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 13, 359-394.
10. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
11. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Boston: MIT Press.
12. Chomsky, N. (1980a). The linguistic approach. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Chomsky, N. (1980b). Rules and representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157-205.
15. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 82-88.
16. Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M., & Curtin, S. (2005). Multiple-cue integration in language acquisition: A connectionist model of speech segmentation and rule-like behavior. In J. W. Minett & W. S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essay in evolutionary linguistics (pp. 205-249). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
17. Christiansen, M. H., & Dale, R. A. (2001). Integrating distributional, prosodic and phonological information in a connectionist model of language acquisition. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18. Christiansen, M. H., Dale, R. A. C., Ellefson, M. R., & Conway, C. M. (2002). The role of sequential learning in language evolution: Computational and experimental studies. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 165-187). London: Springer-Verlag.
19. Christiansen, M. H., & Devlin, J. T. (1997). Recursive inconsistencies are hard to learn: A connectionist perspective on universal word order correlations. In M. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual Cognitive Science Society conference (pp. 113-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (in press). Discovering verbs through multiple-cue integration. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets words: How children learn verbs. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Cleeremans, A. (1993). Attention and awareness in sequence learning. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 330-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Cowie, F. (1998). What's within? Nativism reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63, 522-543.
24. Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2001). Nature, nurture and universal grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 139-186.
25. Ellefson, M. R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2000). Subjacency constraints without universal grammar: Evidence from artificial language learning and connectionist modeling. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Josh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 645-650). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
27. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
28. Fodor, F. D., & Crowther, C. (2002). Understanding stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 105-145.
29. Givón, T. (1998). On the co-evolution of language, mind and brain. Evolution of Communication, 2, 45-116.
30. Gómez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431-436.
31. Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178-186.
32. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). On the evolution of grammatical forms. In A. Wray (Ed.), Transitions to language (pp. 376-397). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33. Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 9-31). London: Longman.
34. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and language processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35. Kelly, M. H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99, 349-364.
36. Kirby, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). From language learning to language evolution. In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 272-294). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37. Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence of a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83, B35-B42.
38. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2001). The poverty of the stimulus argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 217-276.
39. Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 151-162.
40. Lewis, J. D., & Elman, J. L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H. J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 359-370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
41. Lieven, E., Pine, J., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187-219.
42. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
43. Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Mintz, T. H. (2002). Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory and Cognition, 30, 678-686.
45. Mintz, T. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91-117.
46. Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393-424.
47. Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation. Cognition, 96, 143-182.
48. Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1987). Structural packaging in the input to language learning: Contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 498-550.
49. Pine, J., & Lieven, E. (1997). Slot and frame patterns in the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 123-138.
50. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
51. Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 9-50.
52. Reali, F., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2003). Phonological and distributional cues in syntax acquisition: Scaling up the connectionist approach to multiple-cue integration. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 970-975). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
53. Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22, 425-469.
54. Rohde, D. L. T. (1999). LENS: The light, efficient network simulator (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-99-164). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science.
55. Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110-114.
56. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. L. (1996, December 13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
57. Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70, 27-52.
58. Saffran, J. R., & Wilson, D. P. (2003). From syllables to syntax: Multi-level statistical learning by 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 4, 273-284.
59. Scholz, B., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism. Linguistic Review, 19, 185-223.
60. Schütze, H. (1997). Ambiguity resolution in language learning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
61. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62. Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children's early development. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 156-163.
63. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64. Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.