Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus

Cognitive Science

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 771-787

  Kam, Xuan Nga Cao ^a   Stoyneshka, Iglika ^a   Tornyova, Lidiya ^a   Fodor, Janet ^a   Sakas, William G ^a,b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b City University of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

Auxiliary inversion; Bigram model; Cross entropy; Do support; Dutch; Indirect evidence; Interrogatives; Language acquisition; Poverty richness of the stimulus; Relative clauses; Universal grammar

Indexed keywords

EID: 45949090542     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03640210802067053     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F. and Pine, J. M. (2008) Is structure dependence an innate constraint? New experimental evidence from children's complex-question production. Cognitive Science, 32, pp. 222-255.
2. Bernstein-Ratner, N. (1984) Patterns of vowel modification in motherese. Journal of Child Language, 11, pp. 557-578.
3. Bol, G. W. (1996) Optional subjects in Dutch child language. Proceedings of the Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition, pp. 125-135.
4. Chen, S. F. and Goodman, J. (1999) An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 13, pp. 359-394.
5. Chomsky, N. (1971) Problems of knowledge and freedom, Pantheon Books, New York
6. Clark, A. and Eyraud, R. (2006) Learning auxiliary fronting with grammatical inference. Paper presented at the 10th conference on Computational Natural Language Learning New York
7. Kam, X. -N. C. (2007) Statistical induction in the acquisition of auxiliary-inversion. Proceedings of the 31st annual Boston University conference on language development Cascadilla, pp. 345-357. Somerville, MA
8. Kam, X. -N. C., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. G. (2007) Bigram-based learning and the richness of the stimulus for language acquisition.
9. Kampen, J. van (1997) First steps in Wh-movement, Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands
10. Lewis, J. D. and Elman, J. L. (2001) Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University conference on language development Cascadilla, pp. 359-370. Somerville, MA
11. MacWhinney, B. (2000) The CHILDES-project. Volume 2: Tools for analyzing talk: The database., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ
12. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. and Regier, T. (2006) Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society Vancouver, Canada
13. Reali, F. and Christiansen, M. H. (2003) Reappraising poverty of stimulus argument: A corpus analysis approach. Proceedings supplement of the 28th annual Boston University conference on language development Cascadilla, Somerville, MA
14. Reali, F. and Christiansen, M. H. (2005) Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, pp. 1007-1028.
15. Ritter, N. (2002) A review of the poverty of stimulus argument [Special issue]. The Linguistic Review, 19:12
16. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. and Newport, E. L. (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, pp. 1926-1928.