A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition

Abstract

Many researchers believe that there is a logical problem at the center 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.

Pronoun co-referencing errors: Challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts

“…Nonetheless, the above findings provide substantial motivation for further developing usage-based accounts of language acquisition. This optimism is supported by demonstrations of the functional underpinnings of anaphora constraints (van Hoek, 1997;Harris and Bates 2002) and proposals that these need not be taken as a priori unlearnable (Akhtar et al 2004;Lidz et al 2003;;MacWhinney, 2004). The proposal put forward here is that children's knowledge of anaphora constraints depends on understanding i) the relative accessibility of di¤erent referring expressions ii) the contexts in which referring expressions occur, particularly in within-sentence grammatical hierarchies and iii) the contrastive values of pronouns and reflexives.…”

Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of Optional Infinitive errors in children’s declaratives and Wh- questions

“…MOSAIC is therefore often regarded as a usage-based model of language learning (cf. Goldberg, 1995;Lieven, Pine & Baldwin, 1997;Pine, Lieven & Rowland, 1998;Tomasello, 2000;, MacWhinney, 2004. However, although the mechanisms implemented in MOSAIC are certainly consistent with a usage-based analysis, it is important to recognise that MOSAIC is a relatively simple distributional analyser, with no access to semantic information, which is not sufficiently powerful to acquire many aspects of adult syntax.…”

The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors

“…Such overgeneralizations are problematic, because there is no direct competitor in the input which could block the incorrect use. Many authors (e.g., Clark, 1987;Goldberg, 1995;Macwhinney, 2004) have argued that somewhat indirect competitors (e.g., in this case, a periphrastic causative such as make disappear) are sufficient to block the overgeneralized form. If this is the case, however, it is unclear how the child could learn that certain periphrastic causatives [e.g., John made the baby stand up (e.g., through giving an order)] do not block the corresponding transitive causative sentence [e.g., John stood the baby up (e.g., by propping it up against a wall); examples from Bowerman, 1988].…”