A computer model of child language learning

1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mallory Selfridge
2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 592-595
Author(s):  
Melina L. Knabe ◽  
Haley A. Vlach

Ambridge argues that there is widespread agreement among child language researchers that learners store linguistic abstractions. In this commentary the authors first argue that this assumption is incorrect; anti-representationalist/exemplar views are pervasive in theories of child language. Next, the authors outline what has been learned from this body of work, including insights into mechanisms underlying language learning. Interestingly, some of these mechanisms are at odds with counterarguments in Ambridge, such as the finding that forgetting is a critical process of language.


2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 153-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl J. Dunst ◽  
Melinda Raab ◽  
Deborah W. Hamby

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. 48-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELENA LIEVEN

ABSTRACTI first outline three major developments in child language research over the past forty years: the use of computational modelling to reveal the structure of information in the input; the focus on quantifying productivity and abstraction; and developments in the explanation of systematic errors. Next, I turn to what I consider to be major outstanding issues: how the network of constructions builds up and the relationship between social and cognitive development and language learning. Finally, I briefly consider a number of other areas of importance to a psychologically realistic understanding of children's language development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 127-150
Author(s):  
Ailís Cournane

Abstract Acquisition is an intuitive place to look for explanation in language change. Each child must learn their individual grammar(s) via the indirect process of analyzing the output of others’ grammars, and the process necessarily involves social transmission over several years. On the basis of child language learning behaviors, I ask whether it is reasonable to expect the incrementation (advancement) of new variants to be kicked off by and sustained by the acquisition process. I discuss literature on how children respond to input variation, and a series of new studies experimentally testing incrementation, and argue that at least for some phenomena, young children overgeneralize innovative variants beyond their input. I sketch a model of incrementation based on initial overgeneralization, and offer further thoughts on next steps. Much collaborative work remains to precisely link analogous dynamic phenomena in learning and change.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Paul Stemberger ◽  
Mario E. Chávez-Peón

Models of language learning and processing differ in their level of emphasis on the storage of individual meaningful units versus combinations of meaningful units. While there is evidence for the storage of larger stretches of speech, a separate issue is how much such stored forms contribute to processing, as compared to morphologically simpler forms. We examine the acquisition of one aspect of the phonology of Valley Zapotec: complementarity of segmental length based on subsegmental features: vowels before fortis consonants are short (VCː), and vowels before lenis consonants are long (VːC). This complementarity is found for fortis consonants in morphologically simple forms with final stress (simple nouns, verbs with full subject noun), but not in morphologically complex forms with a final unstressed syllable (diminutive nouns, verbs with pronominal subject clitic). During one period of development, Zapotec-learning children overgeneralize the complementarity from morphologically simple to morphologically complex forms (with u-shaped learning likely). The child’s processing of complex forms in language production is based more on simple forms than on the complex forms themselves. We identify five possible explanations of these results. Insofar as combinations of morphemes are stored at this young age, they are relatively ineffective at influencing processing during language production.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document