From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning

Cognitive Science

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 752-793

  Bod, Rens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Analogy; Auxiliary fronting; Computational modeling; Constructions; Data oriented parsing (DOP); Discontiguous dependencies; Distituents; Language acquisition; Language generation; Poverty of the stimulus; Probabilistic context free grammar; Probabilistic tree substitution grammar; Rules versus exemplars; Statistical grammar induction; Unsupervised parsing; Unsupervised DOP

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950753531     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01031.x     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23, 275-290.
2. Ambridge, B., Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2008). Is structure dependence an innate constraint? New experimental evidence from chilren's complex-question production. Cognitive Science, 32, 222-255.
3. Anderson, J. (2006). Structural analogy and universal grammar. Lingua, 116, 601-633.
4. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
5. Billot, S., & Lang, B. (1989). The structure of shared forests in ambiguous parsing. In Proceedings ACL 1989 (pp. 143-151). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
6. Bod, R. (1992). A computational model of language performance: Data-oriented parsing. In Proceedings COLING 1992 (pp. 855-859). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
7. Bod, R. (1998). Beyond grammar: An experienced-based theory of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
8. Bod, R. (1999). Context-sensitive spoken dialogue processing with the DOP model. Natural Language Engineering, 5, 309-323.
9. Bod, R. (2000). Parsing with the shortest derivation. In Proceedings COLING 2000 (pp. 69-75). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
10. Bod, R. (2001). Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences. Paper presented at CUNY conference on sentence processing, Philadelphia.
11. Bod, R. (2002a). A unified model of structural organization in language and music. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17, 289-308.
12. Bod, R. (2002b). Memory-based models of melodic analysis: Challenging the gestalt principles. Journal of New Music Research, 31, 27-37.
13. Bod, R. (2003). Do all fragments count? Natural Language Engineering, 9, 307-323.
14. Bod, R. (2006a). Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. The Linguistic Review, 23, 291-320.
15. Bod, R. (2006b). An all-subtrees approach to unsupervised parsing. In Proceedings ACL 2006 (pp. 865-872). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Bod, R. (2007a). Is the end of supervised parsing in sight? In Proceedings ACL 2007 (pp. 400-407). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
17. Bod, R. (2007b). A linguistic investigation into U-DOP. In Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language acquisition ACL 2007 (pp. 1-8). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
18. Bod, R., & Kaplan, R. (1998). A probabilistic corpus-driven model for lexical-functional analysis. In Proceedings ACL 1998 (pp. 145-151). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Bonnema, R., Bod, R., & Scha, R. (1997). A DOP model for semantic interpretation. In Proceedings ACL 1997 (pp. 159-167). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
20. Borensztajn, G., Zuidema, W., & Bod, R. (2009). Children's grammars grow more abstract with age-Evidence from an automatic procedure for identifying the productive units of language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 175-188.
21. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
22. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 711-733.
23. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24. Carroll, J., & Weir, D. (2000). Encoding frequency information in stochastic parsing models. In H. Bunt & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Advances in probabilistic parsing and other parsing technologies (pp. 13-28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
25. Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 273-302.
26. Chi, Z., & Geman, S. (1998). Estimation of probabilistic context-free grammars. Computational Linguistics, 24, 299-305.
27. Chiang, D. (2007). Hierarchical phrase-based translation. Computational Linguistics, 33, 201-228.
28. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
29. Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.
30. Chomsky, N. (1971). Problems of knowledge and freedom. London: Pantheon Books.
31. Clark, A. (2000). Inducing syntactic categories by context distribution clustering. In Proceedings CoNLL 2000 (pp. 91-94). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
32. Clark, A. (2001). Unsupervised induction of stochastic context-free grammars using distributional clustering. In Proceedings CoNLL 2001 (pp. 105-112). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
33. Clark, A., & Eyraud, R. (2006). Learning auxiliary fronting with grammatical inference. In Proceedings CoNLL 2006 (pp. 33-40). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
34. Collins, M. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language processing. PhD Thesis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
35. Collins, M., & Duffy, N. (2002). New ranking algorithms for parsing and tagging: Kernels over discrete structures, and the voted perceptron. In Proceedings ACL 2002 (pp. 99-106). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
36. Conway, C., & Christiansen, N. (2006). Statistical learning within and between modalities. Psychological Science, 17, 905-914.
37. Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavorial and Brain Sciences, 14, 597-612.
38. Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63, 522-543.
39. Croft, B. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40. Culicover, P., & Nowak, A. (2003). Dynamical grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41. Dennis, S. (2005). An exemplar-based approach to unsupervised parsing. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarell (Eds.), Proceedings CogSci 2005 (pp. 583-588). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
42. Esper, E. (1973). Analogy and association in linguistics and psychology. Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia Press.
43. Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press (Chapter 3).
44. Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., Aguado-Orea, J., & Gobet, F. (2007). Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31, 311-341.
45. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
46. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
47. Goodman, J. (1996). Efficient algorithms for parsing the DOP model. In Proceedings EMNLP 1996 (pp. 143-152). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
48. Goodman, J. (2003). Efficient parsing of DOP with PCFG-reductions. In R. Bod, R. Scha & K. Sima'an (Eds.), Data-oriented parsing (pp. 125-146). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
49. Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10, 146-162.
50. Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
51. Hearne, M., & Way, A. (2004). Data-oriented parsing and the Penn Chinese Treebank. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference natural language processing (pp. 406-413). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
52. Hoogweg, L. (2003). Extending DOP with insertion. In R. Bod, R. Scha & K. Sima'an (Eds.), Data-oriented parsing (pp. 317-335). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
53. Huang, L., & Chiang, D. (2005). Better k-best parsing. In Proceedings IWPT 2005 (pp. 53-64). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
54. Itkonen, E. (2005). Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
55. Johnson, M. (2002). The DOP estimation method is biased and inconsistent. Computational Linguistics, 28, 71-76.
56. Joshi, A. (2004). Starting with complex primitives pays off: Complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science, 28, 637-668.
57. Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39-96). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
58. Kam, X.-N., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J., & Sakas, W. (2008). Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32, 771-787.
59. Kaplan, R. (1996). A probabilistic approach to lexical-functional analysis. In Proceedings of the 1996 LFG conference and workshops (pp. 9-16). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
60. Kay, M. (1980). Algorithmic schemata and data structures in syntactic processing. Report CSL-80-12, Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC.
61. Klein, D., & Manning, C. (2002). A general constituent-context model for improved grammar induction. In Proceedings ACL 2002 (pp. 128-135). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
62. Klein, D., & Manning, C. (2004). Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proceedings ACL 2004 (pp. 478-485). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
63. Klein, D., & Manning, C. (2005). Natural language grammar induction with a generative constituent-context model. Pattern Recognition, 38, 1407-1419.
64. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
65. Lewis, J., & Elman, J. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Proceedings of 26th annual Boston Univ. conference on language development (pp. 359-370). Boston: BUCLD.
66. MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43. Pittsburgh, PA: CMU.
67. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. MacWhinney, B. (2005). Item-based constructions and the logical problem. In Proceedings of the second workshop on psychocomputational models of human language acquisition, ACL 2005 (pp. 1-22). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
69. Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 302-330.
71. Moerk, E. (1983). The mother of Eve as a first language teacher. Norwood: ABLEX.
72. Neumann, G., & Flickinger, D. (2002). HPSG-DOP: Data-oriented parsing with HPSG. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on HPSG, HPSG 2002.
73. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Regier, T. (2006). Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings CogSci 2006 (pp. 566-561). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
74. Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Widenfeld and Nicolson.
76. Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9-50.
77. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, 1007-1028.
78. Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22, 425-469.
79. Rowland, C. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition, 104, 106-134.
80. Sagae, K., Davis, E., Lavie, A., MacWhinney, B., & Wintner, S. (2007). High-accuracy annotation and parsing of CHILDES transcript. In Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language acquisition, ACL 2007 (pp. 25-32). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
81. Scha, R. (1990). Taaltheorie en Taaltechnologie; Competence en Performance. In Q. de Kort & G. Leerdam (Eds.), Computertoepassingen in de Neerlandistiek (pp. 7-22). Almere, The Netherlands: Landelijke Vereniging van Neerlandici.
82. Scha, R., Bod, R., & Sima'an, K. (1999). A memory-based model of syntactic analysis: Data-oriented parsing. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11, 409-440.
83. Seginer, Y. (2007). Fast unsupervised incremental parsing. In Proceedings ACL 2007 (pp. 384-391). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
84. Sima'an, K. (1996). Computational complexity of probabilistic disambiguation by means of tree grammars. In Proceedings COLING 1996 (pp. 1175-1180). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
85. Skousen, R. (1989). Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
86. Skut, W., Krenn, B., Brants, T., & Uszkoreit, H. (1997). An annotation scheme for free word order languages. In Proceedings ANLP 1997. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
87. Solan, D., Horn, D., Ruppin, E., & Edelman, S. (2005). Unsupervised learning of natural languages. Proceedings National Academy of Science, 102, 11629-11634.
88. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
89. Ullman, S. (2007). Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 58-64.
90. Xia, F., & Palmer, M. (2001). Converting dependency structures to phrase structures. In Proceedings HLT 2001 (pp. 54-60). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
91. Xue, N., Chiou, F., & Palmer, M. (2002). Building a large-scale annotated Chinese corpus. In Proceedings COLING 2002 (pp. 108-115). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
92. Younger, D. (1967). Recognition and parsing of context-free languages in time n3. Information and Control, 10, 189-208.
93. van Zaanen, M. (2000). ABL: Alignment-based learning. In Proceedings COLING 2000 (pp. 961-967). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
94. Zollmann, A., & Sima'an, K. (2005). A consistent and efficient estimator for data-oriented parsing. Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics, 10, 367-388.
95. Zuidema, W. (2006). Theoretical evaluation of estimation methods for data-oriented parsing. In Proceedings EACL 2006 (pp. 183-186). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
96. Zuidema, W. (2007). Parsimonious data-oriented parsing. In Proceedings EMNLP 2007 (pp. 551-560). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.