Advertisement

Richly Specified Input to Language Learning

  • Lila R. Gleitman
  • Eric Wanner
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 16)

Abstract

Language is learned, in the course of the everyday events of the first five years of life by children bright and dull, eager or sullen, pampered or abused, exposed to Urdu or to English. This universal learning despite varying environments poses a problem to general inductive theories of language learning. This is largely because the rich input data would seem to allow the learner to form a bewildering number of generalizations, many of them absurd. Along with some others, we argue that the child has specific dispositions about how to organize and represent linguistic stimulation, and that it is these representational biases that rescue his inductions from potentially unlimited pitfalls.

Keywords

Speech Signal Language Learning Word Order Language Acquisition Open Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bellugi, U. The acquisition of negation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. Bickerton, D. Dynamics of a Creole system. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, L. One word at a time. The Hague: Mouton, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, L., Language. New York: Holt, 1933.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, D. C., Computational distinctions of vocabulary type. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, 1978Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, D. C., Garrett, M. F., and Zurif, E. G., Syntactic deficits in Broca’s aphasia. In D. Caplan, ed., Biological studies of mental processes. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes, ed., Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, S. Semantic development. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition: State of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, E., The young word maker. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language Acquisition: State of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. Curtiss, S. Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modem-day “Wild Child. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Dorian, N. D., The fate of morphological complexity in language death. Language, 4(3), 1978, 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eimas, P. Siqueland, E. Jusczyk, P., and Vigorito, J. Speech perception in infants. Science 171, 1971, 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ervin, S. Imitation and structural change in children’s language. In E. Lenneberg, ed., New Directions in the study öf language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, W. The influence of syntactical structure on learning. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 1961, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman, H., Goldin-Meadow, S., and Gleitman, L. Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children, in A. Lock, ed., Action, Symbol, and Gesture; The Emergence of Language, New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. Furrow, D., Nelson, K., and Benedict, H. Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development: Some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language, 6, 1979, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrett, M. F., The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower, ed., The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 9, New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. Glanzer, M. Grammatical category: A rote learning and word association analysis. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 1, 1962, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. R., Language use and language judgment. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang, eds., Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Gleitman, L. R. and Gleitman, H. Phrase and paraphrase. New York: Norton, 1970.Google Scholar
  21. Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., and Shipley, E. F., The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 10, 1972, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gleitman, L. R., Newport, E.L., and Gleitman, H., The current status of the Motherese hypothesis (in press. Journal of Child Language)Google Scholar
  23. Gleitman, L. R. and Rozin, P., The structure and acquisition of reading I: Relations between orthographies and the structure of language, in A. Reber & D. Scarborough, eds., Toward a psychology of reading, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  24. Gleitman, L. R. and Wanner, E., Language acquisition: state of the state of the art, in E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition: State of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. Gold, E. M. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 1967, 447–474.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jusczyk, P. W., Auditory versus phonetic coding of speech signals during infancy. Proceedings of the CNRS Conference, 1980, in press.Google Scholar
  27. Kean, M. L. Agrammatism: A phonological deficit?. Cognition7(1), 1979, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klatt, D. H. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of phonetics, 3, 1975, 129–140.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhl, P. K. and Miller, J. D., Speech perception by the chinchilla. Voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 1975, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landau, B. and Gleitman, L. R., Language learning and the vocabulary of perception in congenitally blind babies (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. Levy, L. and Joshi, A., Skeletal structural descriptions. Information and Control, 39(2), 1978, 192–211.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill, D. Developmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith & G. A. Miller, eds., The genesis of language; a psycholinguistic approach, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  33. Maratsos, M., The child’s construction of grammatical categories. In. E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition; State of the art. New York; Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan, J. and Newport, E. L., The role of constituent structure in the induction of an artificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and verbal behavior, 20, 1981, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newport, E.L. Task specificity in language learning? In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition; state of the art. New York; Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  36. Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. R., Mother, I’d rather do it myself; Some effects and noneffects of maternal speech style. In C. E. Snow and C. A. Ferguson, eds., Talking to children; Language input and acquisition, Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  37. Pinker, S. A theory of the acquisition of lexical-functional grammars, MIT Center for Cognitive Science Occasional Papers, 6, 1980. Also to appear in J. Bresnan, ed., The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge; MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Read, C. and Schreiber, P., Why short subjects are harder to find than long ones, in E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition; The state of the art. New York; Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  39. Rozin, P. and Gleitman, L. R., The acquisition and structure of reading II; The reading process and the acquisition of the alphabetic principle. In A. Reber & D. Scarborough, eds., Toward a psychology of reading, Hillsdale, N.J.; Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. Sankoff, G. and Laberge, S. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language, Kivung, 6, 1973, 32–47.Google Scholar
  41. Slobin, D. I. The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In. F. Smith & C. A. Miller, eds., The genesis of language; A psycholinguistic approach, Cambriddge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  42. Slobin, D. I., Paper read at the Conference on Syntactic Change, University of California at Santa Barbara, May 7–9,1976.Google Scholar
  43. Slobin, D. I., Language change in childhood and in history. In J. Macnamara, ed., Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  44. Slobin, D. I., Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, eds., Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  45. Sorenson, J. M., Cooper, W. E., and Paccia, J. M. Speech timing of grammatical categories. Cognition, 4(2), 1978, 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spelke, E. S. Perceptual knowledge of objects in infancy. In J. Mehler, M. F. Garrett & E. C. Walker, eds., Perspectives in mental representation, Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1982.Google Scholar
  47. Supalla, T., Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of California at San Diego, 1982.Google Scholar
  48. Venneman, T., An explanation of drift. In C. Li, ed., Word order and word order change, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  49. Wanner, E. and Maratsos, M., An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. A. Miller, eds., Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  50. Zwicky, A. M. On clitics. Paper read at the Third International Phonologie-Tagung at the University of Vienna, Sept. 2, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lila R. Gleitman
    • 1
  • Eric Wanner
    • 2
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Harvard University PressCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations