Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

Learning a language by parameter setting is almost certainly less onerous than composing a grammar from scratch. But recent computational modeling of how parameters are set has shown that it is not at all the simple mechanical process sometimes imagined. Sentences must be parsed to discover the properties that select between parameter values. But the sentences that drive learning cannot be parsed with the learner's current grammar. And there is not much point in parsing them with just one new grammar. They must apparently be parsed with all possible grammars, in order to find out which one is most successful at licensing the language. The research task is to reconcile this with the fact that the human sentence parsing mechanism, even in adults, has only very limited parallel parsing capacity. I have proposed that all possible grammars can be folded into one, if parameter values are fragments of sentential tree structures that the parser can make use of where necessary to assign a structure to an input sentence. However, the problem of capacity limitations remains. The combined grammar will afford multiple analyses for some sentences, too many to be computed on-line. I propose that the parser computes only one analysis per sentence but can detect ambiguity, and that the learner makes use of unambiguous input only. This provides secure information but relatively little of it, particularly at early stages of learning where few grammars have been excluded and ambiguity is rife. I consider three solutions: improving the parser's ability to extract unambiguous information from partially ambiguous sentences, assuming default parameter values to temporarily eliminate ambiguity, reconfiguring the parameters so that some are subordinate to others and do not present themselves to the learner until the others have been set. A more radical alternative is to give up the quest for error-free learning and permit parameters to be set without regard for whether the parser may have overlooked an alternative analysis of the sentence. If it can be assumed that the human parser keeps a running tally of the parameter values it has accessed, then the learner would do nothing other than parse sentences for comprehension, as adults do. The most useful parameter values would become more and more easily accessed; the noncontributors would drop out of the running. There would be no learning mechanism at all, over and above the parser. But how accurate this system would be remains to be established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bertolo, S. (1995a). Learnability properties of parametric models for natural language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • Bertolo, S. (1995b). Maturation and learnability in parametric systems. Language Acquisition, 4, 277–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolo, S., Broihier, K., Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1997a). Characterizing learnability conditions for cue-based learners in parametric language systems (Technical report No. D-97-02). Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz.

  • Bertolo, S., Broihier, K., Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1997b). Cue-based learners in parametric language systems: Application of general results to a recently proposed learning algorithm based on unambiguous "superparsing. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, R. C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, R. C., & Niyogi, P. (1996). Learning from triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 605–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, the Netherlands Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clahsen, H. (1990/1991). Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1989). On the relationship between the input data and parameter setting. In Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society (Vol. 19). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1996). Complexity and the induction of tree adjoining grammars. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

  • Clark, R., & Roberts, I. (1993). A computational model of language learnability and language change, Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 299–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déprez, V., & Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 25–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresher, B. E. (in press). Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry.

  • Fodor, J. D. (1989). Principle-based learning. CUNYForum, 14, 59–67. (Published by the Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1994). How to obey the subset principle: Binding and locality. In B. Lust, G. Hermon, & J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives (Vol. II). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry. 29, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D., & Crain, S. (1990). Phrase structure parameters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 591–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A. F. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 407–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1, 3–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projections, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 373–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, S. (1994). Some applications of formal learning theory results to natural language acquisition. In B. Lust, G. Hermon, & J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives (Vol. II). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langendoen, D. T. (1998). Limitations on embedding in coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 27, 235–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M. P. (1977). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazuka, R. (1996). Can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? Prosodic contributions to early setting of a grammatical parameter. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nespor, M., Guasti, M. T., & Christophe, A. (1996). Selecting word order: The rhythmic activation principle. In U. Kleinhenz (Ed.), Interfaces in phonology (pp. 1–26). Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, E. (1992). A nondeterministic success-driven model of parameter setting in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Pinker, S. (1987). The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars in English. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeper, T., & Weissenborn, J. (1990). How to make parameters work: Comments on Valian. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakas, W. A., & Fodor, J. D. (in press). The structural triggers learner. In S. Bertolo (Ed.), Parametric linguistics and learnability: A self-contained tutorial for linguists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., & Hill, N. (1998). On-line sentence processing in children: Evidence from eye movements during listening. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

  • Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? In University College London Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 149–169). London, UK: University College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vainikka, A. (1993/1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition, 3, 257–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1990). Logical and psychological constraints on the acquisition of syntax. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fodor, J.D. Parsing to Learn. J Psycholinguist Res 27, 339–374 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023255705029

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023255705029

Keywords

Navigation