Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:42:28.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The neglected universals: Learnability constraints and discourse cues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Heidi Waterfall  and
Shimon Edelman
Heidi Waterfall
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, and Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. heidi.waterfall@gmail.comhttp://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~heidi
Shimon Edelman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, and Department of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 136-713, South Korea. se37@cornell.eduhttp://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Converging findings from English, Mandarin, and other languages suggest that observed “universals” may be algorithmic. First, computational principles behind recently developed algorithms that acquire productive constructions from raw texts or transcribed child-directed speech impose family resemblance on learnable languages. Second, child-directed speech is particularly rich in statistical (and social) cues that facilitate learning of certain types of structures.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 471 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brodsky, P., Waterfall, H. R. & Edelman, S. (2007) Characterizing motherese: On the computational structure of child-directed language. In: Proceedings of the 29th Cognitive Science Society Conference, ed. McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, J. G., pp. 833–38. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5):489–509; discussion 509–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edelman, S. & Solan, Z. (in press) Translation using an automatically inferred structured language model.Google Scholar
Edelman, S., Solan, Z., Horn, D. & Ruppin, E. (2004) Bridging computational, formal and psycholinguistic approaches to language. In: Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Forbus, K., Gentner, D. & Regier, T., pp. 345–50. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edelman, S., Solan, Z., Horn, D. & Ruppin, E. (2005) Learning syntactic constructions from raw corpora. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston University Conference on language development, ed. Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R. & Ha, S., pp. 180–91. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, S. & Waterfall, H. R. (2007) Behavioral and computational aspects of language and its acquisition. Physics of Life Reviews 4:253–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (2007) Towards a new empiricism. In: Recherches linguistiques à Vincennes, vol. 36, ed. de Carvalho, J. B.. Presses universitaires de Vincenne.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M. H. & Schwade, J. A. (2008) Social feedback to infants' babbling facilitates rapid phonological learning. Psychological Science 19:515–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Z. S. (1946) From morpheme to utterance. Language 22:161–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1991) A theory of language and information. Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1990) Maternal speech and the child's development of syntax: A further look. Journal of Child Language 17:85–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Küntay, A. & Slobin, D. (1996) Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition. In: Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. Slobin, D. & Gerhardt, J., pp. 265–86. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., ed. (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Vol. 1: Transcription format and programs. Vol. 2: The Database. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Onnis, L., Waterfall, H. R. & Edelman, S. (2008) Learn locally, act globally: Learning language from variation set cues. Cognition 109:423–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solan, Z., Horn, D., Ruppin, E. & Edelman, S. (2005) Unsupervised learning of natural languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:11629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solan, Z., Ruppin, E., Horn, D. & Edelman, S. (2003) Unsupervised efficient learning and representation of language structure. In: Proceedings of the 25th conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D., pp. 1106–11. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R. (2006) A little change is a good thing: Feature theory, language acquisition and variation sets. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R. (under review) A little change is a good thing: The relation of variation sets to children's noun, verb and verb-frame development.Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R., Sandbank, B., Onnis, L. & Edelman, S. (under review) An empirical generative framework for computational modeling of language acquisition.Google Scholar