scholarly journals Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: how important is starting small?

Cognition ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas L.T Rohde ◽  
David C Plaut
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Negative Evidence

The Logic of Evidence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Yang
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Bayesian Models ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Classic Problem ◽  
Tolerance Principle

A completely new conceptualization of the indirect negative evidence business in language acquisition, especially in syntax. Instead of thinking about retreating from over-generalization, a derivative application of the Tolerance Principle ensures that the child is much more careful before generalizing. Shows how the learner may acquire that adjectives such as “asleep” do not allow attributive in NPs (“*the asleep cat”), and how to resolve Baker’s classic problem of dative construction acquisition (“*I donated the museum a painting”). A critique of previous proposals, including Bayesian models of inference, is also included.

Something old, something new

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY F. MARCUS
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Domain Specific

MacWhinney's list of proposed mechanisms for language acquisition seems so all-encompassing that it might appear churlish to dwell on a mechanism that's left out, but on his ultimate list of critical mechanisms there is an indeed an important (and intended) omission: innate, linguistically-specialized constraints. Such constraints are indeed mentioned, but if I understand the point of the article correctly, it is to argue that seven cognitive mechanisms, ranging from competition to cue construction, indirect negative evidence and monitoring, collectively obviate the need for any innate machinery that it specialized for language. Why not include room for innate, domain-specific constraints, too?

The Multiple Processes Approach: reply to commentaries on ‘A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition’ by Brian MacWhinney

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 963-968
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Process Approach ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Construction Monitoring ◽  
Logical Problem ◽  
Specific Target ◽  
Process Solution ◽  
Multiple Processes ◽  
Multiple Process

These twelve thoughtful commentaries demonstrate interesting shifts in our collective understanding of the ‘logical problem of language acquisition.’ The bulk of the commentary supports the multiple process approach to the logical problem. At the same time, there is strong and productive disagreement regarding the ways in which conservatism, competition, probabilistic identification, indirect negative evidence, item-based learning, cue construction, monitoring, and constraints make their separate and related contributions to the learning of specific target structures.

De Rol van het Deelverzamelingsprincipe in de Tweede-Taalverwerving.

1988 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 48-57
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Input Data ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Positive Evidence ◽  
Learning Function ◽  
Subset Principle ◽  
Acquisition Strategy ◽  
L1 Acquisition

The subset principle, recently formulated by Wexler and Manzini as a theorem in L1 acquisition, can be roughly described as a learning function linking a set of input data to a grammar G which generates the "smallest language" compatible with such a set. This property of G guarantees that the acquisition process can only take place on the basis of positive evidence; negative evidence thus does not have to play a role. This article discusses the question whether the subset principle also plays a role in the process of second language acquisition. Contrary to what is suggested in the literature it has to be concluded that as an L2 acquisition strategy the subset principle is either redundant or incoherent. The reasoning on which this conclusion is based involves certain implications for the research concerning the problem of overgeneralisation in L2 acquisition.

scholarly journals A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 883-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Processing Load ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Logical Problem ◽  
Multiple Process

Many researchers believe that there is a logical problem at the centre of language acquisition theory. According to this analysis, the input to the learner is too inconsistent and incomplete to determine the acquisition of grammar. Moreover, when corrective feedback is provided, children tend to ignore it. As a result, language learning must rely on additional constraints from universal grammar. To solve this logical problem, theorists have proposed a series of constraints and parameterizations on the form of universal grammar. Plausible alternatives to these constraints include: conservatism, item-based learning, indirect negative evidence, competition, cue construction, and monitoring. Careful analysis of child language corpora has cast doubt on claims regarding the absence of positive exemplars. Using demonstrably available positive data, simple learning procedures can be formulated for each of the syntactic structures that have traditionally motivated invocation of the logical problem. Within the perspective of emergentist theory (MacWhinney, 2001), the operation of a set of mutually supportive processes is viewed as providing multiple buffering for developmental outcomes. However, the fact that some syntactic structures are more difficult to learn than others can be used to highlight areas of intense grammatical competition and processing load.

scholarly journals The (near) absence of English in Flemish dinner table conversations

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Zenner ◽  
Dorien Van De Mieroop
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Socialization ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Multimodal Discourse Analysis ◽  
Multimodal Discourse ◽  
Dinner Table ◽  
Strong Position

AbstractThis paper studies the low frequency of English insertions in child-directed speech in eight Flemish families, which is striking considering the strong position of English in other domains in Flanders. Crossing usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language socialization research, we scrutinize our corpus of dinner table conversations that consist of over 25,000 utterances, complemented by sociolinguistic interviews with the caregivers of each family. After mining our corpus for English insertions, we present a quantitative exploration that reveals how less than 1% of the utterances per family contain English insertions. Assessing whether this result can be interpreted as parents’ attempts to socialize their children towards Dutch, and what this reveals about their language regards, we analyze selected fragments through multimodal discourse analysis. After discussing possible implications of these findings for the position of English in Flanders, we additionally discuss them against the theoretical background of developmental sociolinguistics, and against the methodological background of working with small samples and negative evidence in a usage-based approach (see e.g. negative entrenchment.

Negative Feedback in Child NS-NNS Conversation

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Nonnative Speaker ◽  
Negotiation Strategies

This paper reports on a study that examines the pattern of interaction in child native speaker (NS)–nonnative speaker (NNS) conversation to determine if the NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS conversational partners. It appears that just as children are able to modify their input for their less linguistically proficient conversational partners in first language acquisition (Snow, 1977), so too are children able to modify their interactions for NNS peers in the second language acquisition process and, in doing so, provide negative feedback. Two forms of NS modification were identified in this study as providing reactive and implicit negative feedback to the NNS. These were (a) negotiation strategies, including repetition, clarification requests, and comprehension checks, and (b) recasts. The results indicated that NSs respond differentially to the grammaticality and ambiguity of their NNS peers' conversational contributions. Furthermore, NS responses (negotiate, recast, or ignore) appeared to be triggered by the type and complexity of NNS errors, although it was more likely overall that negative feedback would be used rather than the error ignored. Additionally, evidence suggested that negative feedback was incorporated by the NNSs into their interlanguage systems. This indicates that not only does negative evidence exist for child second language learners in these types of conversations, but that it is also usable and used by them in the language acquisition process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document