1887
Volume 8, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Language acquisition is a computational process by which linguistic experience is integrated into the learner’s initial stage of knowledge. To understand language acquisition thus requires precise statements about these components and their interplay, stepping beyond the philosophical and methodological disputes such as the generative vs. usage-based approaches. I review several mathematical models that have guided the study of child language acquisition: How learners integrate experience with their prior knowledge of linguistic structures, How researchers assess the progress of language acquisition with rigor and clarity, and How children form the rules of language even in the face of exceptions. I also suggest that these models are applicable to second language acquisition (L2), yielding potentially important insights on the continuities and differences between child and adult language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.18014.yan
2018-11-26
2019-09-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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. Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R.
    (2008) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106(1), 87–129. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  3. Angluin, D.
    (1980) Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Information and Control, 45(2):117–135. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(80)90285‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(80)90285-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., & Brown, D.
    (Eds.) (2010) Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.5871/bacad/9780197264607.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264607.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, C. L.
    (1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, E. & Elman, J.
    (1996) Learning rediscovered. Science, 274(5294), 1849. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1849
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1849 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berwick, R.
    (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
    (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bley-Vroman, R.
    (1989) What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 4, 1–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bley-Vroman, R. & Yoshinaga, N.
    (1992) Broad and narrow constraints on the english dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 11, 157–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloch, B.
    (1947) English verb inflection. Language, 23(4), 399–418. 10.2307/410300
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410300 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bloom, L.
    (1970) Language development: Form and function in emerging grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bloom, P.
    (1990) Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 491–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2000) How children learn the meanings of words. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Blum, L. & Blum, M.
    (1975) Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and control, 28(2), 125–155. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(75)90261‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(75)90261-2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Borer, H. & Wexler, K.
    (1987) The maturation of syntax. InRoeper, T. and Williams, E., (Eds.), Parameter setting, 123–172. Berlin: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3727‑7_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bowerman, M.
    (1982) Reorganizational process in lexical and syntactic development. InWanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R., (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, (pp.319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bowerman, M. & Croft, W.
    (2008) The acquisition of the English causative alternation. InBowerman, M. & Brown, P., (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability (pp.279–307). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y.
    (1999) Training japanese listeners to identify english /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985. 10.3758/BF03206911
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206911 [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown, R.
    (1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674732469
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674732469 [Google Scholar]
  23. Bush, R. R. and Mosteller, F.
    (1951) A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 68(3):313–323. 10.1037/h0054388
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054388 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bybee, J. L.
    (2006) Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, N.
    (1955) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University and MIT. Revised version published by Plenum, New York 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1958) [Review of Belevitch 1956]. Language, 34(1), 99–105. 10.2307/411281
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411281 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1968) Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1981) Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2001) Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  32. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Clahsen, H.
    (1999) Lexical entries and rules of languge: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1069. 10.1017/S0140525X99002228
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002228 [Google Scholar]
  34. Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P.
    (1986) The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2(2), 93–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A., & Marcus, G.
    (1992) Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition, 45, 225–255. 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90018‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90018-D [Google Scholar]
  36. Cochran, B. P., McDonald, J. L., & Parault, S. J.
    (1999) Too smart for their own good: The disadvantage of a superior processing capacity for adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 30–58. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2633
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2633 [Google Scholar]
  37. Cohen, W. W.
    (1995) Fast effective rule induction. InProceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning, Lake Tahoe, California.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Conwell, E. & Demuth, K.
    (2007) Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103(2), 163–179. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Cook, V. & Newson, M.
    (2014) Chomsky’s universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R.
    (2016) Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Crain, S. & Nakayama, M.
    (1987) Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63(3), 522–543. 10.2307/415004
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Culicover, P. W.
    (1999) Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Cutler, A. & Carter, D. M.
    (1987) The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2(3–4), 133–142. 10.1016/0885‑2308(87)90004‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2308(87)90004-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. Dᶏbrowska, E.
    (2001) Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 545–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Demuth, K.
    (1989) Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language, 65(1), 56–80. 10.2307/414842
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414842 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1996) The prosodic structure of early words. InMorgan, J. L. & Demuth, K., (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, (pp.171–186). Hove: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Diessel, H.
    (2013) Construction grammar and first language acquisition. InHoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, pages347–364. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Dijkstra, T.
    (2005) Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, (pp.179–201). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2009) Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59(s1), 90–125. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00537.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00537.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Elman, J. L.
    (1993) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1), 71–99. 10.1016/0010‑0277(93)90058‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90058-4 [Google Scholar]
  51. Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G.
    (1996) Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(4), 677–714. 10.1017/S0140525X00043521
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00043521 [Google Scholar]
  52. Estes, W. K.
    (1950) Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57(2), 94. 10.1037/h0058559
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058559 [Google Scholar]
  53. Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J.
    (1994) Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, pp.i–185. 10.2307/1166093
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1166093 [Google Scholar]
  54. Fodor, J. D.
    (2001) Parameters and the periphery: Reflections on syntactic nuts. Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 367–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Fodor, J. D. & Crain, S.
    (1987) Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. InMacWhinney, B., (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, (pp.35–63). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Friederici, A. D.
    (2017) Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gerken, L.
    (1994) A metrical template account of children’s weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language, 21(03), 565–584. 10.1017/S0305000900009466
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009466 [Google Scholar]
  58. Gibson, E. & Wexler, K.
    (1994) Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 407–454.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gold, E. M.
    (1967) Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447–474. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(67)91165‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5 [Google Scholar]
  60. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C.
    (1998) Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(6664), 279–281. 10.1038/34646
    https://doi.org/10.1038/34646 [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldin-Meadow, S. & Yang, C.
    (2017) Statistical evidence that a child can create a combinatorial linguistic system without external linguistic input: Implications for language evolution. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Part B), 150–157. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  63. Gordon, P.
    (1985) Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition, 20(3), 209–242. 10.1016/0010‑0277(85)90009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90009-5 [Google Scholar]
  64. (1988) Count/mass category acquisition: distributional distinctions in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 15(1), 109–128. 10.1017/S0305000900012083
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900012083 [Google Scholar]
  65. Grimshaw, J.
    (1990) Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Grinstead, J.
    (2000) Case, inflection and subject licensing in child catalan and spanish. Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 119–155. 10.1017/S0305000999004043
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999004043 [Google Scholar]
  67. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257. 10.2307/415332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  68. Guasti, M. T.
    (2004) Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hadley, P. A., Rispoli, M., & Holt, J. K.
    (2017) Input subject diversity accelerates the growth of tense and agreement: Indirect benefits from a parent-implemented intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2619–2635. 10.1044/2017_JSLHR‑L‑17‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0008 [Google Scholar]
  70. Hadley, P. A. & Walsh, K. M.
    (2014) Toy talk: Simple strategies to create richer grammatical input. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(3), 159–172. 10.1044/2014_LSHSS‑13‑0055
    https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0055 [Google Scholar]
  71. Halle, M.
    (1973) Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(1), 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R.
    (1987) An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Harley, H. & Miyagawa, S.
    (2016) Ditransitives. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed.Retrieved21 Aug. 2018, fromlinguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-186.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hart, B. & Risley, T. R.
    (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MS: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  76. Hayes, B.
    (1982) Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(2), 227–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Herrnstein, R. J. & Loveland, D. H.
    (1975) Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 107–116. 10.1901/jeab.1975.24‑107
    https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107 [Google Scholar]
  78. Hoff, E.
    (2014) Language development. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D.
    (1981) Introduction. InHornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D., (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, (pp.9–31). Oxford: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 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]
  81. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T.
    (1991) Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236. 10.1037/0012‑1649.27.2.236
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.236 [Google Scholar]
  82. Hyams, N.
    (1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4638‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4638-5 [Google Scholar]
  83. (1991) A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. InWeissenborn, J., Goodluck, H., & Roeper, T., (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, (pp.249–268). Hove: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Hyams, N. & Wexler, K.
    (1993) On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 421–459.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Ibbotson, P. & Tomasello, M.
    (2016) Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language learning. Scientific American, 315(5).
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Inagaki, S.
    (1997) Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47(4), 637–669. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00024
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00024 [Google Scholar]
  87. Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Bautista Maldonado, S.
    (2008) Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of english articles. Lingua, 118(4), 554–576. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  88. Jackendoff, R. S.
    (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Jelinek, F.
    (1998) Statistical methods for speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Jiang, N.
    (2000) Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 47–77. 10.1093/applin/21.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  91. Judy, T.
    (2011) L1/L2 parametric directionality matters: More on the null subject parameter in l2 acquisition. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11(1), 165–190. 10.1075/eurosla.11.10jud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.11.10jud [Google Scholar]
  92. Kanno, K.
    (1997) The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in japanese by english speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287. 10.1191/026765897673070746
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897673070746 [Google Scholar]
  93. Kareev, Y.
    (1995) Through a narrow window: Working memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition, 56(3), 263–269. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)92814‑G
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)92814-G [Google Scholar]
  94. Kim, Y.-J.
    (2000) Subject/object drop in the acquisition of korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9(4), 325–351. 10.1023/A:1008304903779
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008304903779 [Google Scholar]
  95. Kowalski, A. & Yang, C.
    (2012) Verb islands in child and adult language. InBiller, A. K., Chung, E. Y., & Kimball, A. E., (Eds.), BUCLD 36: Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, (pp.281–289), Somerset, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Krifka, M.
    (1999) Manner in dative alternation. InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 18, 260–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Kroch, A.
    (1989) Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 199–244. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  98. Kučera, H. & Francis, W. N.
    (1967) Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Labov, W.
    (1995) The case of the missing copula: The interpretation of zeros in African American English. InGleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1: Language, (pp.25–54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Lakoff, G.
    (1970) Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Legate, J. A. & Yang, C.
    (2007) Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition, 14(3), 315–344. 10.1080/10489220701471081
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701471081 [Google Scholar]
  102. (2013) Assessing child and adult grammar. InBerwick, R. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M., (Eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs: In honor of Carol Chomsky, (pp.168–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Levin, B.
    (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Barnes, H. D.
    (1992) Individual differences in early vocabulary development: Redefining the referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 19(02), 287–310. 10.1017/S0305000900011429
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011429 [Google Scholar]
  105. Lignos, C. & Yang, C.
    (2016) Morphology and language acquisition. InHippisley, A., & Stump, G.. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/9781139814720.027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.027 [Google Scholar]
  106. Lin, L. I.
    (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268. 10.2307/2532051
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051 [Google Scholar]
  107. Liu, D. & Gleason, J. B.
    (2002) Acquisition of the article the by non-native speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1–26. 10.1017/S0272263102001018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102001018 [Google Scholar]
  108. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3rd edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Mandelbrot, B.
    (1953) An informational theory of the statistical structure of language. InJackson, B. W., (Ed.), Communication theory, Vol.84, 486–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Marchman, V. A. & Bates, E.
    (1994) Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21(2), 339–366. 10.1017/S0305000900009302
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009302 [Google Scholar]
  111. Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M. T., Hollander, M., Rosen, J., & Xu, F.
    (1992) Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.2307/1166115
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1166115 [Google Scholar]
  112. Markson, L. & Bloom, P.
    (1997) Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature, 385(6619), 813–815. 10.1038/385813a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/385813a0 [Google Scholar]
  113. Mazurkewich, I. & White, L.
    (1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning over-generalizations. Cognition, 16(3), 261–283. 10.1016/0010‑0277(84)90030‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90030-1 [Google Scholar]
  114. McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K.
    (2002) Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 465–472. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01993‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01993-9 [Google Scholar]
  115. Miller, G. A.
    (1957) Some effects of intermittent silence. American Journal of Psychology, 70(2), 311–314. 10.2307/1419346
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1419346 [Google Scholar]
  116. Miller, J. F.
    (1981) Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Miller, K. L. & Schmitt, C.
    (2012) Variable input and the acquisition of plural morphology. Language Acquisition, 19(3), 223–261. 10.1080/10489223.2012.685026
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2012.685026 [Google Scholar]
  118. Mitchell, T. M.
    (1982) Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), 203–226. 10.1016/0004‑3702(82)90040‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(82)90040-6 [Google Scholar]
  119. Newport, E.
    (1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28. 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 [Google Scholar]
  120. Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N.
    (2004) Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48(2), 127–162. 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00128‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00128-2 [Google Scholar]
  121. Nida, E. A.
    (1949) Morphology: the descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2nd edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Osherson, D. N. & Smith, E. E.
    (1981) On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58. 10.1016/0010‑0277(81)90013‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5 [Google Scholar]
  123. Perdue, C.
    (Ed.) (1993) Adult language acquisition: Field methods, Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Glass, W. R.
    (1999) Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15(2), 220–249. 10.1191/026765899676722648
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899676722648 [Google Scholar]
  125. Pesetsky, D.
    (1995) Zero syntax: Experiencer and Cascade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Phinney, M.
    (1987) The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. InRoeper, T. & Williams, E., (Eds.), Parameter setting, pp.221–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3727‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  127. Pierce, A.
    (1992) Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2574‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2574-1 [Google Scholar]
  128. Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G., & Gobet, F.
    (2013) Do young children have adult-like 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]
  129. Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V.
    (1997) Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(2), 123–138. 10.1017/S0142716400009930
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009930 [Google Scholar]
  130. Pinker, S.
    (1979) Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7(3), 217–283. 10.1016/0010‑0277(79)90001‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90001-5 [Google Scholar]
  131. (1984) Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. (1995) Why the child holded the baby rabbit: A case study in language acquisition. InGleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1: Language, pp.107–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T.
    (2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456–463. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01990‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3 [Google Scholar]
  136. Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C.
    (1994) The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. InLevy, Y., (Ed.), Other children, other languages, pp.137–187. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Pullum, G. K. & Wilson, D.
    (1977) Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language, 53(4), 741–788. 10.2307/412911
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412911 [Google Scholar]
  138. Roberts, J.
    (1997) Acquisition of variable rules: A study of (-t, d) deletion in preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 24(2), 351–372. 10.1017/S0305000997003073
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000997003073 [Google Scholar]
  139. Rothman, J. & Slabakova, R.
    (2017) The generative approach to sla and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–26. 10.1017/S0272263117000134
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000134 [Google Scholar]
  140. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E.
    (1996) Statistical learning by by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  141. Sakas, W. G. & Fodor, J. D.
    (2012) Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 19(2), 83–143. 10.1080/10489223.2012.660553
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2012.660553 [Google Scholar]
  142. Sakas, W. G., Yang, C., & Berwick, R.
    (2017) Parameter setting is feasible. Linguistic Analysis, 41(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Sapir, E.
    (1928) Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Schuler, K.
    (2017) The acquisition of productive rules in child and adult language learners. PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Schuler, K., Yang, C., & Newport, E.
    (2016) Testing the Tolerance Principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. InThe 38th Cognitive Society Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R.
    (1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 turkish) german interlanguage. InHoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D., (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, pp.317–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.8.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.8.14sch [Google Scholar]
  147. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A.
    (1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second language research, 12(1), 40–72. 10.1177/026765839601200103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103 [Google Scholar]
  148. Silvey, C. & Christodoulopoulos, C.
    (2016) Children’s production of determiners as a test case for innate syntactic categories. InRoberts, S., Cuskley, C., McCrohon, L., Barcelô-Coblijn, L., Fehér, O., & Verhoef, T., (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANGX11).
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Slabakova, R.
    (2008) Meaning in the second language, Vol.34. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211511 [Google Scholar]
  150. Smith, J., Durham, M., & Fortune, L.
    (2009) Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: Caregivers, children, and t/d deletion. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 69–95. 10.1017/S0954394509000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509000039 [Google Scholar]
  151. Smith, N. V. & Tsimpli, I.-M.
    (1995) The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Snape, N.
    (2008) Resetting the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Definite article use and the count-mass distinction in L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 63–79. 10.1017/S1366728907003215
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003215 [Google Scholar]
  153. Solomonoff, R. J.
    (1964) A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I. Information and control, 7(1), 1–22. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(64)90223‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(64)90223-2 [Google Scholar]
  154. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2008) Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–531. 10.1515/COGL.2008.020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.020 [Google Scholar]
  155. Stevens, J., Trueswell, J., Yang, C., & Gleitman, L.
    (2016) The pursuit of word meanings. Cognitive Science, 41, 638–676. 10.1111/cogs.12416
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12416 [Google Scholar]
  156. Straus, K. J.
    (2008) Validation of a probabilistic model of language acquisition in children. PhD thesis, Northeastern University.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Suppes, P.
    (1974) The semantics of children’s language. American Psychologist, 29(1), 103–114. 10.1037/h0036026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036026 [Google Scholar]
  158. Terrace, H. S.
    (1987) Nim: A chimpanzee who learned sign language. Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Terrace, H. S., Petitto, L.-A., Sanders, R. J., & Bever, T. G.
    (1979) Can an ape create a sentence?Science, 206(4421), 891–902. 10.1126/science.504995
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.504995 [Google Scholar]
  160. Tettamanti, M., Alkadhi, H., Moro, A., Perani, D., Kollias, S., & Weniger, D.
    (2004) Neural correlates for the acquisition of natural language syntax. NeuroImage, 17, 700–709. 10.1006/nimg.2002.1201
    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1201 [Google Scholar]
  161. Tokowicz, N.
    (2014) Lexical processing and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Tomasello, M.
    (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  163. (2000a) Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition, 74(3), 209–253. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00069‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4 [Google Scholar]
  164. (2000b) First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive linguistics, 11(1/2), 61–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  165. (2003) Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L.
    (1999) The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00032‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3 [Google Scholar]
  167. Valian, V.
    (1991) Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40(1), 21–81. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90046‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7 [Google Scholar]
  168. Valian, V., Solt, S., & Stewart, J.
    (2009) Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children’s determiners. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 743–778. 10.1017/S0305000908009082
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009082 [Google Scholar]
  169. Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2012) Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 174.
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C. T., & Levitt, A.
    (1992) Null subject versus null object: Some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2(3), 221–254. 10.1207/s15327817la0203_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0203_2 [Google Scholar]
  171. Wexler, K.
    (1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1), 23–79. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00029‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 [Google Scholar]
  172. Wexler, K. & Culicover, P.
    (1980) Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. White, L.
    (1985) Is there a “logical problem” of second language acquisition?TESL Canada Journal, 2(2), 29–42. 10.18806/tesl.v2i2.460
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v2i2.460 [Google Scholar]
  174. (1989) Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.1 [Google Scholar]
  175. (1990) The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1(4), 337–360. 10.1207/s15327817la0104_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0104_2 [Google Scholar]
  176. (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
  177. Wiese, R.
    (1996) The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 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]
  179. Yang, C.
    (2000) Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change, 12(3), 231–250. 10.1017/S0954394500123014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500123014 [Google Scholar]
  180. (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  181. (2004) Universal grammar, statistics or both?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 451–456. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  182. (2006) The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn the languages of the world. New York: Scribner.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. (2012) Computational models of syntactic acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 205–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. (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]
  185. (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]
  186. (2015a) For and against frequencies. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 287–293. 10.1017/S0305000914000683
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000683 [Google Scholar]
  187. (2015b) 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]
  188. (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. (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]
  190. 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]
  191. Yang, C., Ellman, A., & Legate, J. A.
    (2015) Input and its structural description. InOtt, D. & Gallego, A., (Eds.), 50th anniversary of Noam Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  192. 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]
  193. Yip, K. & Sussman, G. J.
    (1997) Sparse representations for fast, one-shot learning. InProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.521–527.
    [Google Scholar]
  194. Yu, C. & Smith, L. B.
    (2007) Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science, 18(5), 414–420. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2007.01915.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01915.x [Google Scholar]
  195. Zipf, G. K.
    (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.18014.yan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.18014.yan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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