Cover not available
Article published In:
Epistemological issue with keynote article “A Formalist Perspective on Language Acquisition” by Charles Yang
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6] 2018
► pp. 665–706

A formalist perspective on language acquisition

| University of Pennsylvania
Language acquisition is a computational process by which linguistic experience is integrated into the learner’s initial stage of knowledge. To understand language acquisition thus requires precise statements about these components and their interplay, stepping beyond the philosophical and methodological disputes such as the generative vs. usage-based approaches. I review several mathematical models that have guided the study of child language acquisition: How learners integrate experience with their prior knowledge of linguistic structures, How researchers assess the progress of language acquisition with rigor and clarity, and How children form the rules of language even in the face of exceptions. I also suggest that these models are applicable to second language acquisition (L2), yielding potentially important insights on the continuities and differences between child and adult language.
Article outline
  • 1.A formal introduction
  • 2.Competition and selection
    • 2.1Background
    • 2.2The variational model
    • 2.3Null subject: The last parameter?
  • 3.Rules vs. storage
    • 3.1Assessing usage-based learning
    • 3.2A statistical benchmark for grammar
  • 4.Productivity and exceptions
    • 4.1Two kinds of exceptions
    • 4.2The Tolerance Principle
    • 4.3Dative generalizations and retreats
  • 5.Formal applications to L2 acquisition
    • 5.1UG access and input frequency
    • 5.2Rule, productivity, and vocabulary
    • 5.3Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18014.yan
References (195)
References
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (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(1), 87–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angluin, D. (1980). Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Information and Control, 45(2):117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., & Brown, D. (Eds.) (2010). Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & Elman, J. (1996). Learning rediscovered. Science, 274(5294), 1849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1–68.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the english dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 111, 157–199.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1947). English verb inflection. Language, 23(4), 399–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 491–504.Google Scholar
(2000). How children learn the meanings of words. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum, L. & Blum, M. (1975). Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and control, 28(2), 125–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E., (Eds.), Parameter setting, 123–172. Berlin: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational process in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R., (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, (pp. 319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Croft, W. (2008). The acquisition of the English causative alternation. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P., (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability (pp. 279–307). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training japanese listeners to identify english /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bush, R. R. and Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 68(3):313–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University and MIT. Revised version published by Plenum, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
(1958). [Review of Belevitch 1956]. Language, 34(1), 99–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of languge: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 991–1069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2(2), 93–109.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A., & Marcus, G. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition, 451, 225–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cochran, B. P., McDonald, J. L., & Parault, S. J. (1999). Too smart for their own good: The disadvantage of a superior processing capacity for adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 30–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. W. (1995). Fast effective rule induction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning, Lake Tahoe, California.Google Scholar
Conwell, E. & Demuth, K. (2007). Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103(2), 163–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (2014). Chomsky’s universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2016). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63(3), 522–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2(3–4), 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dᶏbrowska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 545–574.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1989). Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language, 65(1), 56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The prosodic structure of early words. In Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K., (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, (pp. 171–186). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, pages 347–364. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, (pp. 179–201). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59(s1), 90–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1), 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(4), 677–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57(2), 94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, pp. i–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2001). Parameters and the periphery: Reflections on syntactic nuts. Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Crain, S. (1987). Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B., (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, (pp. 35–63). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2017). Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. (1994). A metrical template account of children’s weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language, 21(03), 565–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 407–454.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 101, 447–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(6664), 279–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Yang, C. (2017). Statistical evidence that a child can create a combinatorial linguistic system without external linguistic input: Implications for language evolution. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Part B), 150–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition, 20(3), 209–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Count/mass category acquisition: distributional distinctions in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 15(1), 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grinstead, J. (2000). Case, inflection and subject licensing in child catalan and spanish. Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 119–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2004). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hadley, P. A., Rispoli, M., & Holt, J. K. (2017). Input subject diversity accelerates the growth of tense and agreement: Indirect benefits from a parent-implemented intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2619–2635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadley, P. A. & Walsh, K. M. (2014). Toy talk: Simple strategies to create richer grammatical input. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(3), 159–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(1), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Miyagawa, S. (2016). Ditransitives. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed. Retrieved 21 Aug. 2018, from [URL].Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MS: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(2), 227–276.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J. & Loveland, D. H. (1975). Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 241, 107–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E. (2014). Language development. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D., (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, (pp. 9–31). Oxford: Longman.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. In Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H., & Roeper, T., (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, (pp. 249–268). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. & Wexler, K. (1993). On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 421–459.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. & Tomasello, M. (2016). Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language learning. Scientific American, 315(5).Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47(4), 637–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Bautista Maldonado, S. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of english articles. Lingua, 118(4), 554–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, F. (1998). Statistical methods for speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 47–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in japanese by english speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kareev, Y. (1995). Through a narrow window: Working memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition, 56(3), 263–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.-J. (2000). Subject/object drop in the acquisition of korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9(4), 325–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, A. & Yang, C. (2012). Verb islands in child and adult language. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y., & Kimball, A. E., (Eds.), BUCLD 36: Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, (pp. 281–289), Somerset, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1999). Manner in dative alternation. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 181, 260–271.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kučera, H. & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1995). The case of the missing copula: The interpretation of zeros in African American English. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1: Language, (pp. 25–54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition, 14(3), 315–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Assessing child and adult grammar. In Berwick, R. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M., (Eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs: In honor of Carol Chomsky, (pp. 168–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Barnes, H. D. (1992). Individual differences in early vocabulary development: Redefining the referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 19(02), 287–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lignos, C. & Yang, C. (2016). Morphology and language acquisition. In Hippisley, A., & Stump, G.. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. & Gleason, J. B. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by non-native speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. (1953). An informational theory of the statistical structure of language. In Jackson, B. W., (Ed.), Communication theory, Vol. 841, 486–502.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A. & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21(2), 339–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M. T., Hollander, M., Rosen, J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markson, L. & Bloom, P. (1997). Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature, 385(6619), 813–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning over-generalizations. Cognition, 16(3), 261–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 465–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1957). Some effects of intermittent silence. American Journal of Psychology, 70(2), 311–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. F. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Miller, K. L. & Schmitt, C. (2012). Variable input and the acquisition of plural morphology. Language Acquisition, 19(3), 223–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. M. (1982). Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), 203–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48(2), 127–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1949). Morphology: the descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N. & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perdue, C., (Ed.) (1993). Adult language acquisition: Field methods, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Glass, W. R. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15(2), 220–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencer and Cascade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E., (Eds.), Parameter setting, pp. 221–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G., & Gobet, F. (2013). Do young children have adult-like syntactic categories? Zipf’s law and the case of the determiner. Cognition, 127(3), 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(2), 123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7(3), 217–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1995). Why the child holded the baby rabbit: A case study in language acquisition. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1: Language, pp. 107–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C. (1994). The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Levy, Y., (Ed.), Other children, other languages, pp. 137–187. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language, 53(4), 741–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. (1997). Acquisition of variable rules: A study of (-t, d) deletion in preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 24(2), 351–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. & Slabakova, R. (2017). The generative approach to sla and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by by 8-month-old infants. Science, 2741, 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakas, W. G. & Fodor, J. D. (2012). Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 19(2), 83–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakas, W. G., Yang, C., & Berwick, R. (2017). Parameter setting is feasible. Linguistic Analysis, 41(1).Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1928). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Schuler, K. (2017). The acquisition of productive rules in child and adult language learners. PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Schuler, K., Yang, C., & Newport, E. (2016). Testing the Tolerance Principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. In The 38th Cognitive Society Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 turkish) german interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D., (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, pp. 317–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second language research, 12(1), 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silvey, C. & Christodoulopoulos, C. (2016). Children’s production of determiners as a test case for innate syntactic categories. In Roberts, S., Cuskley, C., McCrohon, L., Barcelô-Coblijn, L., Fehér, O., & Verhoef, T., (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANGX11).Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language, Vol. 341. Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, J., Durham, M., & Fortune, L. (2009). Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: Caregivers, children, and t/d deletion. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. V. & Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Definite article use and the count-mass distinction in L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomonoff, R. J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I. Information and control, 7(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J., Trueswell, J., Yang, C., & Gleitman, L. (2016). The pursuit of word meanings. Cognitive Science, 411, 638–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straus, K. J. (2008). Validation of a probabilistic model of language acquisition in children. PhD thesis, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children’s language. American Psychologist, 29(1), 103–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1987). Nim: A chimpanzee who learned sign language. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Terrace, H. S., Petitto, L.-A., Sanders, R. J., & Bever, T. G. (1979). Can an ape create a sentence? Science, 206(4421), 891–902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tettamanti, M., Alkadhi, H., Moro, A., Perani, D., Kollias, S., & Weniger, D. (2004). Neural correlates for the acquisition of natural language syntax. NeuroImage, 171, 700–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2014). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000a). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive linguistics, 11(1/2), 61–82.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40(1), 21–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valian, V., Solt, S., & Stewart, J. (2009). Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children’s determiners. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 743–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in psychology, 31, 174.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C. T., & Levitt, A. (1992). Null subject versus null object: Some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2(3), 221–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1), 23–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). Is there a “logical problem” of second language acquisition? TESL Canada Journal, 2(2), 29–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1(4), 337–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R. (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Xu, F. & Pinker, S. (1995). Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 531–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. (2000). Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change, 12(3), 231–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 451–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn the languages of the world. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
(2012). Computational models of syntactic acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 205–213.Google Scholar
(2013a). Ontogeny and phylogeny of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6324–6327 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Who’s afraid of George Kingsley Zipf? Or: Do children and chimps have language? Significance, 10(6), 29–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). For and against frequencies. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 287–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Negative knowledge from positive evidence. Language, 91(4), 938–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Rage against the machine: Evaluation metrics in the 21st century. Language Acquisition, 24(2), 100–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of language: Universal grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Part B), 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Ellman, A., & Legate, J. A. (2015). Input and its structural description. In Ott, D. & Gallego, A., (Eds.), 50th anniversary of Noam Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Yang, C. & Montrul, S. (2017). Learning datives: The tolerance principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research, 33(1), 119–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, K. & Sussman, G. J. (1997). Sparse representations for fast, one-shot learning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 521–527.Google Scholar
Yu, C. & Smith, L. B. (2007). Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science, 18(5), 414–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by (36)

Cited by 36 other publications

Cabrelli, Jennifer & Michael Iverson
2024. Why do learners overcome non-facilitative transfer faster from an L2 than an L1? The cumulative input threshold hypothesis. International Journal of Multilingualism 21:3 ► pp. 1594 ff. DOI logo
Gupton, Timothy & Brian Gravely
2024. What Formal Approaches to Syntactic Interfaces Can Tell Us about the Syntax of Preverbal and Prenominal Constituents in Galician. Languages 9:8 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Cherici, Alessia
2023. The role of L1 and L2 in the acquisition of null subjects by Chinese learners of L3 Italian. International Journal of Multilingualism 20:3 ► pp. 735 ff. DOI logo
Turner, James
2023. The role of L2 input in developing a novel L2 contrast phonetically and phonologically: Production evidence from a residence abroad context. Second Language Research DOI logo
Yang, Charles
2023. A User’s Defense of the Tolerance Principle: Reply to Enger (2022). Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 145:4 ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo
Aguado-Orea, Javier
2022. Estimations of child linguistic productivity controlling for vocabulary and sample size. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Kumarage, Shanthi, Seamus Donnelly & Evan Kidd
2022. Implicit learning of structure across time: A longitudinal investigation of syntactic priming in young English-acquiring children. Journal of Memory and Language 127 ► pp. 104374 ff. DOI logo
Kush, Dave & Anne Dahl
2022. L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian. Second Language Research 38:2 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Pan, Xiaoquan
2022. Exploring the multidimensional relationships between educational situation perception, teacher support, online learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy in technology-based language learning. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Shin, Naomi & Karen Miller
2022. Children’s Acquisition of Morphosyntactic Variation. Language Learning and Development 18:2 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Prasetya, Rizky
2021. English Teaching Based-Strategy LMS Moodle and Google Classroom. English Education:Journal of English Teaching and Research 6:1 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Heil, Jeanne & Luis López
2020. Acquisition without evidence: English infinitives and poverty of stimulus in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 36:4 ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo
Hicks, Glyn & Laura Domínguez
2020. A model for L1 grammatical attrition. Second Language Research 36:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Morales Reyes, Alexandra & Silvina Montrul
2020. Variational Learning in Child L2 Acquisition? Comprehension of Verbal Agreement in Spanish and English. Language Learning and Development 16:3 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2020. Contingency learning and perfective morpheme productivity in L2 Italian: A study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:3 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Slabakova, Roumyana, Tania Leal, Amber Dudley & Micah Stack
2020. Generative Second Language Acquisition, DOI logo
Archibald, John
2019. Types of evidence and the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9:6 ► pp. 809 ff. DOI logo
Archibald, John
2021. Turtles all the way down: Micro-cues and piecemeal transfer in L3 phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 37:3 ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo
Krleza, Dalibor, Boris Vrdoljak & Mario Brcic
2019. Latent Process Discovery Using Evolving Tokenized Transducer. IEEE Access 7 ► pp. 169657 ff. DOI logo
Biberauer, Theresa
2018. Less is More. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 707 ff. DOI logo
De Cat, Cécile
2018. Evaluating Yang’s algorithms. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 712 ff. DOI logo
Dimroth, Christine
2018. Input and the acquisition of productive grammatical knowledge. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 717 ff. DOI logo
Domínguez, Laura & Jorge González Alonso
2018. What is the role of L1 representations in a grammar-input model of L2 acquisition?. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 722 ff. DOI logo
Goldberg, Adele E.
2018. The sufficiency principle hyperinflates the price of productivity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 727 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2018. Mechanistic formal approaches to language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 733 ff. DOI logo
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
2018. On the intolerance of the Tolerance Principle. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 738 ff. DOI logo
Lidz, Jeffrey & Laurel Perkins
2018. The importance of input representations. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
Montrul, Silvina A.
2018. Learning a second language takes more than math. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 749 ff. DOI logo
Paradis, Johanne
2018. Language-level input factors are not enough to explain child bilingual acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 753 ff. DOI logo
Roeper, Tom
2018. Grammar acquisition and grammar choice in the variationist model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 758 ff. DOI logo
Rothman, Jason & Noam Chomsky
2018. Towards eliminating arbitrary stipulations related to parameters. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 764 ff. DOI logo
Rowland, Caroline F.
2018. The principles of scientific inquiry. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 770 ff. DOI logo
Slabakova, Roumyana
2018. Back to our roots. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 776 ff. DOI logo
Svenonius, Peter
2018. Learning rules versus learning items. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 782 ff. DOI logo
Wittenberg, Eva & Ray Jackendoff
2018. Formalist modeling and psychological reality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 787 ff. DOI logo
Yusa, Noriaki
2018. Input effects on the development of I-language in L2 acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:6 ► pp. 792 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.