Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can't explain noun compounding

Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-40

  Ramscar, Michael ^a   Dye, Melody ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compounding; Conventions; Distributional information; Inflection; Informativity; Language; Learning; Morphology; Phonology; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH;

EID: 78149309733     PISSN: 00100285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alegre M.A., Gordon P. Red rats eater exposes recursion in children's word formation. Cognition 1996, 60:65-82.
2. Altmann G.T.M., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73:247-264.
3. Altmann G.T.M., Mirković J. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:1-27.
4. Baayen R.H. Assessing the processing consequences of segment reduction in Dutch with naive discriminative learning. Lingue & Linguaggio 2010.
5. Behrens, H. (2001). Learning multiple regularities: Evidence from overgeneralization errors in the german plural. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Domínguez, & A. Johansen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
6. Berent I., Pinker S. The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint?. The Mental Lexicon 2007, 2(2):129-181.
7. Berent I., Pinker S. Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell. The Mental Lexicon 2008, 2(3):176-187.
8. Bybee J.L. Morphology as lexical organization. Theoretical morphology 1988, 119-141. Academic Press, San Diego. M. Hammond, M. Noonan (Eds.).
9. Bybee J.L. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 1995, 10:425-455.
10. Bybee J.L., Slobin D.I. Rules and schemes in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 1982, 58:265-289.
11. Chierchia G. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 1998, 6:339-405.
12. Clahsen H. Lexical entries and the rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1999, 22:991-1060.
13. Clahsen H., Rothweiler M., Woest A., Marcus G. Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 1992, 45:225-255.
14. Davies M. The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English (1990-2008): Design, architecture and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2009, 14:159-190.
15. Diamond A., Goldman-Rakic P.S. Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget's AB task: Evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Experimental Brain Research 1989, 74:24-40.
16. Ellis N.C., Schmidt R. Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language & Cognitive Processes 1999, 13:307-336.
17. Fernald A., Swingley D., Pinto J.P. When half a word is enough: Infants can recognize spoken words using partial phonetic information. Child Development 2001, 72:1003-1015.
18. Gennari S.P., MacDonald M.C. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition 2009, 111:1-23.
19. Gopnik M. Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature 1990, 344:715.
20. Gordon P. Level ordering in lexical development. Cognition 1985, 21:73-93.
21. Gordon P., Miozzo M. Can word formation be understood or understanded by semantics alone?. Cognitive Psychology 2008, 56:30-72.
22. Graves M.F., Koziol S. Noun plural development in primary grade children. Child Development 1971, 42:1165-1173.
23. Hahn U., Nakisa R.C. German inflection: Single route or dual route?. Cognitive Psychology 2000, 41(4):313-360.
24. Hart B., Risley T.R. Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children 1995, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, Baltimore.
25. Haskell T.R., MacDonald M.C., Seidenberg M.S. Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:119-163.
26. Jackendoff R. The architecture of the language faculty 1997, MIT Press.
27. Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., Haywood S.L. Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49:133-156.
28. Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst, & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations - Part 1. Foris.
29. Kiparsky, P. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 mid-American linguistics conference. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
30. Kirkham N.Z., Diamond A. Sorting between theories of perseveration: Performance in conflict tasks requires, attention, and inhibition. Developmental Science 2003, 6:474-476.
31. Köpcke K-M. The acquisition of plural marking in English and German revisited: Schemata versus rules. Journal of Child Language 1998, 25:293-319.
32. Köpke K-M. Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen 1993, Gunter Narr, Tübingen.
33. Kucera H., Francis W.N. Computational analysis of present-day American English 1967, Brown University Press, Providence.
34. Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions 1962, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
35. MacWhinney B., Leinbach J. Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 1991, 40:121-157.
36. Marcus G.F. Children's overregularization of English plurals: a quantitative analysis. Journal of Child Language 1995, 22:447-459.
37. Marcus G.F. Poverty of the stimulus arguments. Encyclopedia of cognitive science 1999, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. R. Wilson, F.C. Keil (Eds.).
38. Marcus G.F., Brinkmann U., Clahsen H., Wiese R., Pinker S. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 1995, 29:189-256.
39. McClelland J.L., Patterson K. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:465-472.
40. Milin P., Kuperman V., Kostic A., Baayen R.H. Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition 2009, 214-252. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J.P. Blevins, J. Blevins (Eds.).
41. Miller G.A. The psycholinguists. The psychology of communication 1967, Penguin Books, London. G.A. Miller (Ed.).
42. Murphy G.L. The big book of concepts 2002, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Murphy V.A., Hayes J. Processing english compounds in the first and second language: The influence of the middle morpheme. Language Learning 2010, 60(1):194-220.
44. Nicoladis E. Compounding is not contingent on level ordering in acquisition. Cognitive Development 2003, 18:319-328.
45. O'Sullivan L.P., Mitchell L.L., Daehler M.W. Representation and perseveration: Influences on young children's representational insight. Journal of Cognition & Development 2001, 2:339-366.
46. Pinker S. Language learnability and language development 1984, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
47. Pinker S. Review of Dan Slobin, "Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity" and Melissa Bowerman's "What shapes children's grammars" Journal of Child Language 1989, 16:456-463.
48. Pinker S. Rules of language. Science 1991, 253:530-535.
49. Pinker S. Words and rules 1999, Basic Books, New York.
50. Pinker S. Four decades of rules and associations, or whatever happened to the past tense debate?. Language, the brain, and cognitive development: Papers in honor of Jacques Mehler 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. E. Dupoux (Ed.).
51. Pinker S., Prince A. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 1988, 28:73-193.
52. Pinker S., Ullman M.T. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:456-463.
53. Plaut D.C., Booth J.R. Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review 2000, 107:786-823.
54. Plunkett K., Marchman V. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 1993, 48:21-69.
55. Prasada S., Pinker S. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:1-56.
56. Ramscar M.J.A. The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense doesn't require a rule. Cognitive Psychology 2002, 45(2):45-94.
57. Ramscar, M. J. A., & Dye, M. (2009). Expectation and negative evidence in language learning: the curious absence of mouses in adult speech. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
58. Ramscar M., Gitcho N. Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood. Trends in Cognitive Science 2007, 11(7):274-279.
59. Ramscar M.J.A., Yarlett D.G. Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: A new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:927-960.
60. Ramscar M., Yarlett D.G., Dye M.W., Denny K., Thorpe K. The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science 2010, 34(6):909-957.
61. Rice M.L., Wexler K. Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1996, 39:1239-1257.
62. Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. McClelland, & D. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 2). The PDP Research Group, MIT Press.
63. Senghas, A., Kim, J. J., Pinker, S., & Collins, C. (1991). Plurals-inside compounds: Morphological constraints and their implications for acquisition. In Proceedings of the sixteenth annual Boston university conference on language development, Boston, MA.
64. Swingley D. Contributions of infant word learning to language development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2009, 364:3617-3622.
65. Swingley D., Pinto J.P., Fernald A. Continuous processing in word recognition at 24 months. Cognition 1999, 71:73-108.
66. Tanenhaus M.K., Brown-Schmidt S. Language processing in the natural world. Transactions of the royal society B: biological sciences 2008, 363:1105-1122.
67. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Eberhard K.M., Sedivy J.E. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 1995, 268:1632-1634.
68. Teichmann M., Dupoux E., Kouider S., Brugieres P., Boisse M.f., Baudic S., et al. The role of the striatum in rule application: The model of huntington's disease at early stage. Brain 2005, 128:1155-1167.
69. Tomasello M., Stahl D. Sampling children's spontaneous speech: How much is enough?. Journal of Child Language 2004, 31:101-121.
70. Ullman M.T. Contributions of neural memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 2004, 92(1-2):231-270.
71. Van Der Lely, H. J. K, & Ullman, M. T. (1996). The computation and representation of past-tense morphology in specifically language impaired and normally developing children. In Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
72. Van Der Lely H.J.K., Christian V. Lexical word formation in children with grammatical SLI: A grammar-specific versus an input-processing deficit?. Cognition 2000, 75:33-63.
73. Zipf G.K. The psychobiology of language 1935, Houghton-Mifflin, New York.
74. Zipf G.K. Human behavior and the principle of least-effort 1949, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.