SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Rowland, C., & Young, C. (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, 87129.
  • Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533581.
  • Baker, C. L., & McCarthy, J. J. (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bates, E., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D., Fenson, L., & Dale, P. (1994). Development and stylistic variation in the composition of early vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 21, 85123.
  • Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68, 482490.
  • Bowerman, M.. (1988). The ‘No Negative Evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J.Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73101). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Braine, M. D. S.. (1971). On two types of models on the internalization of grammars. In D. I.Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 153186). New York: Academic Press.
  • Brent, M. R. (1999). Speech segmentation and word discovery: A computational perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 294301.
  • Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, 75, 720738.
  • Brooks, P., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70, 13251337.
  • Brooks, P., & Zizak, O. (2002). Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity? Journal of Child Language, 29, 759781.
  • Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R.Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.
  • Chater, N. (1996). Reconciling simplicity and likelihood principles in perceptual organization. Psychological Review, 103, 566581.
  • Chater, N. (2004). What can be learned from positive data? Insights from an ‘ideal learner’. Journal of Child Language, 31, 915918.
  • Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. (2002). Simplicity: A unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 1922.
  • Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. (2007). Ideal learning’ of natural language: Positive results about learning from positive evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51, 135163.
  • Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Phd dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theories of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2007). Generalization and connectionist language learning. Mind & Language, 9, 273287.
  • Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 597612.
  • Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 385 million words, 1990-present. Corpus of Contemporary American English [On-line]. Available at: http://www.americancorpus.org [accessed on June 24, 2010]
  • Davies, M. (2009). BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus. British National Corpus [On-line]. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc [accessed on June 29, 2010]
  • Dowman, M. (2000). Addressing the learnability of verb subcategorizations with Bayesian inference. In L. R.Gleitman & A. K.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 107112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Dowman, M. (2007, June). Using minimum description length to make grammatical generalizations. Presented at Machine Learning and Cognitive Science of Language Acquisition meeting at UCL, London. Available at: http://videolectures.net/mlcs07_dowman_umd/
  • Elman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179211.
  • Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Feldman, J. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 403, 630633.
  • Fodor, J. D., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Fodor, J. D., & Crain, S. (1987). Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. In B.Mac Whinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Carnegie-Mellon Conference on Cognition (pp. 3563). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Foraker, S., Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. In D.McNamara & J.Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 275281). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Foraker, S., Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. Cognitive Science, 33, 300.
  • Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In D. K.Oller & R. E.Eiler (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220254). New York: Multilingual Matters.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219224.
  • Goldsmith, J. (2001). Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics, 27, 153198.
  • Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203207.
  • Grünwald, P. (1994). A minimum description length approach to grammar inference. In S.Scheler, S.Wernter, & E.Rilof (Eds.), Connectionist, statistical and symbolic approaches to learning for natural language (pp. 203216). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
  • Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Hart, B., & Risley, J. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
  • Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypothesis with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307321.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vols. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langley, P., & Stromsten, S. (2000). Learning context-free grammars with a simplicity bias. Proceedings of the eleventh European conference on machine learning (pp. 220228). Barcelona: Springer-Verlag.
  • Lightfoot, D. (1998a). Promises, promises, general learning algorithms. Mind & Language, 13, 582587.
  • Lightfoot, D. (1998b). The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Mac Whinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B.Mac Whinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquistion (pp. 249308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Mac Whinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • MacDonald, M. C. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 3554.
  • MacKay, D. (2003). Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • De Marcken, C. (1996). Unsupervised Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, MIT.
  • Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 5385.
  • Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Cognition, 16, 261283.
  • McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 186.
  • Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N.Schmitt & M.McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 619). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127162.
  • Onnis, L., Roberts, M., & Chater, N. (2002). Simplicity: A cure for overgeneralizations in language acquisition? In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 720725). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Park, N. S. (1989). Weight as a linguistic variable with reference to English. Language Research, 28, 803894.
  • Perfors, A., Regier, T., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 663668). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins.
  • Pullum, G. (1997). The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language, 73, 79102.
  • Pullum, G., & Scholtz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 950.
  • Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, 10001028.
  • Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22, 425469.
  • Regier, T., & Gahl, S. (2004). Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition, 93, 147155.
  • Ritter, H., & Kohonen, T. (1989). Self-organizing semantic maps. Biological Cybernetics, 61, 241254.
  • Seidenberg, M. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 15991603.
  • Spencer, J. P., Blumberg, M. S., McMurray, B., Robinson, S. R., Samuelson, L. K., & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 7987.
  • Stolcke, A. (1994). Bayesian learning of probabilistic language models. Berkeley: Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California.
  • Theakston, A. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 1534.
  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Tomasello, M. (2004). What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Studies in Language, 28, 642644.
  • Vitányi, P., & Li, M. (2000). Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov complexity. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-46, 446464.
  • White, L. (1987). Children’s overgeneralizations of the dative alternation. In K.Nelson & A.Van Kleeck (Eds.), Children’s language (6th ed., pp. 261287). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451456.