Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:02:40.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2010

AMY PERFORS ,
JOSHUA B. TENENBAUM  and
ELIZABETH WONNACOTT
AMY PERFORS*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide
JOSHUA B. TENENBAUM
Affiliation:
Department of Brain & Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ELIZABETH WONNACOTT
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework for modeling the acquisition of verb argument constructions. It embodies a domain-general approach to learning higher-level knowledge in the form of inductive constraints (or overhypotheses), and has been used to explain other aspects of language development such as the shape bias in learning object names. Here, we demonstrate that the same model captures several phenomena in the acquisition of verb constructions. Our model, like adults in a series of artificial language learning experiments, makes inferences about the distributional statistics of verbs on several levels of abstraction simultaneously. It also produces the qualitative learning patterns displayed by children over the time course of acquisition. These results suggest that the patterns of generalization observed in both children and adults could emerge from basic assumptions about the nature of learning. They also provide an example of a broad class of computational approaches that can resolve Baker's Paradox.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Special Issue 3: Computational models of child language learning , June 2010 , pp. 607 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

We would like to thank Charles Kemp, Lila Gleitman, Brian MacWhinney, Nick Chater and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. A version of this work made up a portion of the PhD thesis of the first author. This work was supported by an NDSEG graduate fellowship (AP), an NSF graduate fellowship (AP), the Paul E. Newton Career Development Chair (JBT), the James S. McDonnell Foundation Causal Learning Collaborative Initiative (JBT) and AFOSR grant FA9550-1-0075 (JBT).

References

REFERENCES

Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). A probabilistic model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science 32(5), 789–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J. & Seidenberg, M. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Emergence of language, 115–52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, C. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 533–81.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1988). The no negative evidence problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium, 153–86. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. & Brooks, P. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. (eds), Beyond names of things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 353–76. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75, 720–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K. & Lewis, L. (1999). Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70, 1325–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. & Vitànyi, P. (2007). ‘Ideal learning’ of natural language: Positive results about learning from positive evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 51(3), 135–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouinard, M. & Clark, E. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30, 637–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dominey, P. (2003). Learning grammatical constructions in a miniature language from narrated video events. In Alterman, R. & Kirsch, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 354–59. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Dowman, M. (2000). Addressing the learnability of verb subcategorizations with Bayesian inference. In Gleitman, L. & Joshi, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 107–112. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology 23, 331–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1991). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73, 153–76.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of word learning. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology 26(2), 217–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R. (1991). Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language 18(1), 115–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, A. (2009). Differential use of implicit negative evidence in generative and discriminative language learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10(3), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31, 883–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of the English word. Cognitive Development 201, 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition 16, 261–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, D. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In Coltheart, M. (ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, 601–681. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. & Demuth, K. (1996). Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquistition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Onnis, L., Roberts, M. & Chater, N. (2002). Simplicity: A cure for overregularizations in language acquisition? In Gray, W. & Schunn, C. (eds), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 720–25. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Trueswell, J. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49, 238–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children's and adults' performance limitations on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development 19, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M. & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 528–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. & Tanenhaus, M. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E. & Perfors, A. (2009). Constraining generalisation in artificial language learning: Children are rational too. Poster presented at 22nd Annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York.Google Scholar