Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one

Cognitive Science

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 287-300

  Foraker, Stephani ^a   Regier, Terry ^a   Khetarpal, Naveen ^a   Perfors, Amy ^b   Tenenbaum, Joshua ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anaphora; Bayesian learning; Indirect evidence; Language acquisition; Poverty of the stimulus; Syntax

Indexed keywords

EID: 70450190858     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01014.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Akhtar, N., Callanan, M., Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2004). Learning antecedents for anaphoric one. Cognition, 93, 141-145.
2. Baker, C. L. (1978). Introduction to generative transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Baker, C. L. (1989). English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Berwick, R. C. (1986). Learning from positive-only examples: The subset principle and three case studies. In R. S. Michalski, J. C. Carbonell & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 625-645). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
5. Bowen, R. (2005). Noun complementation in English: A corpus-based study of structural types and patterns. In G. Florby (Ed.), Gothenburg Studies in English 91 (pp. 1-270). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
6. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
9. Fillmore, C. J. (1965). Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.
10. Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9-31). London: Longman.
11. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Keizer, E. (2004). Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 323-350.
13. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104 (2), 211-240.
15. 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 26th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 359-370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
16. Lidz, J., Waxman, S., & Freedman, J. (2003). What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned: Evidence for syntactic structure at 18-months. Cognition, 89, B65-B73.
17. Lidz, J., & Waxman, S. (2004). Reaffirming the poverty of the stimulus argument: A reply to the replies. Cognition, 93, 157-165.
18. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Regier, T. (2006). Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 663-668). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Pinker, S. (1995). Language acquisition. In L. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 135-182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven sentence structure grammar. Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.
22. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, 1007-1028.
24. Regier, T., & Gahl, S. (2004). Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition, 93, 147-155.
25. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
26. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193-241.
27. Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist, 29, 103-114.
28. Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29. Tomasello, M. (2004). Syntax or semantics? Response to Lidz et al. Cognition, 93, 139-140.