Learning antecedents for anaphoric one

Cognition

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 141-145

  Akhtar, Nameera ^a   Callanan, Maureen ^a   Pullum, Geoffrey K ^a   Scholz, Barbara C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Language acquisition; Linguistic input; Poverty of the stimulus

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INFANCY; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STIMULUS; NOTE;

HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 7544242322     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.12.002     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Baker C.L. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. 1978;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
2. Barrile M., Armstrong E.S., Bower T.G.R. Novelty and frequency as determinants of newborn preference. Developmental Science. 2:1999;47-52
3. Bloom L. Language acquisition in its developmental context. Kuhn D., Siegler R.S. Handbook of child psychology. Cognition, perception, and language. Vol. 2:1998;309-370 Wiley, New York
4. Callanan, M., & Sabbagh, M (in press). Multiple labels for objects in conversations with young children: Parents; language and children's developing expectations about word meanings. Developmental Psychology.
5. Hart B., Risley T.R. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. 1995;P.H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD
6. Huddleston R.D., Pullum G.K. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. 2002;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
7. Lidz J., Waxman S., Freedman J. What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned: Experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Cognition. 89:2003;B65-B73
8. Pullum G.K., Scholz B.C. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review. 19:2002;9-50
9. Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd ed.:1995;Blackwell, Cambridge, MA