Volume 8, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V.
    (2011) Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511975073
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975073 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K., & Rodina, Y.
    (2012) Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition, 19(1), 39–72. 10.1080/10489223.2012.633844
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2012.633844 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderwald, L.
    (2013) Natural language change or prescriptive influence?: Throve, dove, pled, drug and snuck in 19th-century American English. English World-Wide, 34(2), 146–176. 10.1075/eww.34.2.02and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.34.2.02and [Google Scholar]
  4. Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H.
    (1983) What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263–308. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90012‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R.
    (2007) The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. 10.3758/BF03193014
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berko, J.
    (1958) The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14(2–3), 150–177. 10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
    (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biberauer, T.
    (2018) Less is More: On the Tolerance Principle as a manifestation of Maximize Minimal Means. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 707–711. 10.1075/lab.18080.bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18080.bib [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brannon, E. M., Wusthoff, C. J., Gallistel, C., & Gibbon, J.
    (2001) Numerical subtraction in the pigeon: Evidence for a linear subjective number scale. Psychological Science, 12(3), 238–243. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00342
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00342 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ceolin, A.
    (2018) Explaining cross-linguistic differences in article omission through an acquisition model. InBertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. G., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp.100–113, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, N.
    (1968) Language and mind. Harcourt, Brace and World.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1995) The minimalist program. Boston: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Derks, P. L. & Paclisanu, M. I.
    (1967) Simple strategies in binary prediction by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(2), 278. 10.1037/h0024137
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024137 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Cat, C.
    (2018) Evaluating Yang’s algorithms: An outline. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 712–716. 10.1075/lab.18066.de
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18066.de [Google Scholar]
  16. Dimroth, C.
    (2018) Input and the acquisition of productive grammatical knowledge: Vocabulary size as missing link?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 722–726. 10.1075/lab.18057.dim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18057.dim [Google Scholar]
  17. Domínguez, L. & González Alonso, J.
    (2018) What is the role of L1 representations in a grammar-input model of L2 acquisition?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 717–721. 10.1075/lab.18060.dom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18060.dom [Google Scholar]
  18. Fruchter, J. & Marantz, A.
    (2015) Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the Full Decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 143, 81–96. 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R.
    (1992) Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44(1–2), 43–74. 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90050‑R
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibbon, J.
    (1977) Scalar expectancy theory and weber’s law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84(3), 279. 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gleitman, L.
    (1990) The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 3–55. 10.1207/s15327817la0101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2005) Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 23–64. 10.1207/s15473341lld0101_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0101_4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A.
    (2018) The sufficiency principle hyperinflates the price of productivity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 727–732.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. Th.
    (2018) Mechanistic formal approaches to language acquisition: Yes, but at the right level(s) of resolution. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 733–737.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hart, B. & Risley, T. R.
    (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing, Baltimore, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hudson Kam, C. L. & Newport, E. L.
    (2005) Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195. 10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jarmulowicz, L.
    (2002) English derivational suffix frequency and children’s stress judgements. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 192–204. 10.1006/brln.2001.2517
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2517 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jäschke, T. & Plag, I.
    (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 485–521. 10.1017/S0272263115000261
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kapatsinski, V.
    (2018) On the intolerance of the Tolerance Principle. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 738–742.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lidz, J. & Perkins, L.
    (2018) The importance of input representations. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 743–748.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lignos, C.
    (2013) Modeling words in the mind. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
  32. Marchman, V. A., Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N.
    (2010) How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young spanish-english bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 37(4), 817–840. 10.1017/S0305000909990055
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990055 [Google Scholar]
  33. Montrul, S.
    (2018) Learning a Second Language Takes More than Math. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 749–752. 10.1075/lab.18055.mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18055.mon [Google Scholar]
  34. Paradis, J.
    (2018) Language-level input factors are not enough to explain child bilingual acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 753–757. 10.1075/lab.18059.par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18059.par [Google Scholar]
  35. Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G., & Gobet, F.
    (2013) Do young children have adultlike syntactic categories? Zipf’s law and the case of the determiner. Cognition, 127(3), 345–360. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Regel, S., Opitz, A., Müller, G., & Friederici, A. D.
    (2015) The past tense debate revisited: Electrophysiological evidence for subregularities of irregular verb inflection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(9), 1870–1885. 10.1162/jocn_a_00818
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00818 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roeper, T.
    (2018) Grammar acquisition and grammar choice in the variationist model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 758–763.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rothman, J. & Chomsky, N.
    (2018) Towards eliminating arbitrary stipulations related to parameters: Linguistic innateness and the variational model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 764–769.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rowland, C.
    (2018) The principles of scientific inquiry. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 770–775.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schuler, K.
    (2017) The acquisition of productive rules in child and adult language learners. PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
  41. Schütze, C. T.
    (2005) Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. InKepser, S. & Reis, M., (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, pages457–485. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 10.1515/9783110197549.457
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.457 [Google Scholar]
  42. Slabakova, R.
    (2018) Back to our roots. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 776–780. 10.1075/lab.18062.sla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18062.sla [Google Scholar]
  43. Sternberg, S.
    (1969) Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57(4), 421–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Studdert-Kennedy, M.
    (1998) The particulate origins of language generativity: from syllable to gesture. InHurford, J., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Knight, C., (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language, pages202–221. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Svenonius, P.
    (2018) Learning rules versus learning items. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 781–786. 10.1075/lab.18067.sve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18067.sve [Google Scholar]
  46. Taft, M.
    (2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(4), 745–765. 10.1080/02724980343000477
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 [Google Scholar]
  47. Trueswell, J. C., Lin, Y., Armstrong, B., Cartmill, E. A., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Gleitman, L. R.
    (2016) Perceiving referential intent: Dynamics of reference in natural parent-child interactions. Cognition, 148, 117–135. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tyler, A. & Nagy, W.
    (1989) The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6):649–667. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90002‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90002-8 [Google Scholar]
  49. Visser, F. T.
    (1963) An historical syntax of the English language. Brill Archive.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Weir, M. W.
    (1964) Developmental changes in problem-solving strategies. Psychological Review, 71(6), 473. 10.1037/h0041785
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041785 [Google Scholar]
  51. White, L. & Genesee, F.
    (1996) How native is near-native? the issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12(3), 233–265. 10.1177/026765839601200301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200301 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wittenberg, E. & Jackendoff, R.
    (2018) Formalist modeling and psychological reality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 787–791. 10.1075/lab.18077.wit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18077.wit [Google Scholar]
  53. Xu, F. & Pinker, S.
    (1995) Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 531–556. 10.1017/S0305000900009946
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009946 [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, C.
    (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2013a) Ontogeny and phylogeny of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6324–632710.1073/pnas.1216803110
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216803110 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2013b) Who’s afraid of George Kingsley Zipf? Or: Do children and chimps have language?Significance, 10(6), 29–34. 10.1111/j.1740‑9713.2013.00708.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00708.x [Google Scholar]
  57. (2015) Negative knowledge from positive evidence. Language, 91(4):938–953. 10.1353/lan.2015.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0054 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break rules of language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (2017) Rage against the machine: Evaluation metrics in the 21st century. Language Acquisition, 24(2), 100–125. 10.1080/10489223.2016.1274318
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2016.1274318 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2018) A user’s guide to the Tolerance Principle. Manuscript. University of Pennsylvania (ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004146).
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J.
    (2017) The growth of language: Universal grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Part B), 103–119. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.023 [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang, C. & Montrul, S.
    (2017) Learning datives: The tolerance principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research, 33(1), 119–144. 10.1177/0267658316673686
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316673686 [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang, C. & Valian, V.
    (2018) Determiners and grammars. Submitted.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Yusa, N.
    (2018) Input effects on the development of I-language in L2 acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 792–796. 10.1075/lab.18081.yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18081.yus [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Reply
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error