lecture7_alternatives_LA11_504608018

Alternative approachesto language acquisitionLanguage Acquisition80640272Yang XiaoluReadings for this week*Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5):219-224.Lieven, E., Pine, J., and Baldwin, G. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language24:187-219.*Tomasello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209-253.*Tomasello, M. and Brooks, P. J. 1998. Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics9(4):379-395.the Chomskyan view of languageacquisitionmentalismthe logical problem of language acquisitionuniversal grammarmodularityInnatenessthe debate between nativism vs. empiricism; generative linguistics vs. cognitive-functional linguisticsCommon ground between generativelinguistics and cognitive functional linguistics (Goldberg 2003)Language is a cognitive (mental) system: (as opposed to the behaviorist view of language) Structures are combined in a certain way to create novel utterances.A non-trivial theory of language learning is needed.Some basic concepts in the debatecore vs. peripherymodular vs. non-modulardomain-specificity vs. domain-generalityautonomy vs. interactionrule-based learning vs. item-based/lexically-based learning/usage-based-complexity-productivity“In other ways, constructionist approaches contrast sharply with the mainstream generative approach. The latter has held that the nature of language can best be revealed by studying formal structures independently of their semantic or discourse functions. Ever increasing layers of abstractness have characterized the formal representations. Meaning is claimed to derive from the mental dictionary of words, with functional differences between formal patterns being largely ignored. Semiregular patterns and unusual patterns are viewed as ‘peripheral,’with a narrow band of data seen as relevant to the ‘core’of language. Mainstream generative theory argues further that the complexity of core language cannot be learned inductively by general cognitive mechanisms and therefore learners must be hard-wired with principles that are specific to language (‘universal grammar’).”(Goldberg 2003:219)Explaining language acquisition in terms of general cognitive principlesMcNamara 1972 “Cognitive basis of language learning in infants”Slobin1973 “Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar”Tomasello2000 The Cultural Origins of Human CognitionLanguage is interactive: language development is not simply a development of mental grammar internalized by the child, but is a product of complex interactions of linguistic, cognitive, perceptual systems with the environment.Cognitive development precedes linguistic development. The child uses the cognitive ability s/he has developed (e.g. the ability to detect intentional behavior in others, the capacity for joint attention and reference, understanding of the structure of action in social interaction, understanding of the speech acts of others), as well as other cognitive principles and mechanisms, as guides to discovering the linguistic system of the target language.Explaining language acquisition in terms of general cognitive principles: connectionism Elman, J. et al. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development.Elman, J. (2001). Connectionism and language acquisition. In M. Tomasello& E. Bates (Eds.), Essential Readings in Language Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Bates, E. Elman, J., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1998). Innateness and emergentism. In W. Bechtel and G. Graham (Eds.) A Companion to Cognitive Science.Oxford: Basil Blackwood.cf. 李平, 2002, 《当代语言学》2002年第3期Language is not domain-specific and is processed by general mechanisms. Such mechanisms are connectionist networks that consist of numerous simple units.Language is analyzed through continuous connectionist computation and is distributed across neural systems. Linguistic competence can be obtained without innate linguistic rules.Language learning is not a process of deriving complex structures from more primitive or innate ones. Rather, new forms or structures emerge all the time in an unpredictable way in response to the linguistic input.Figure 1: A neural network that reads letters and recognizes words. When a letter is detected, the corresponding letter node activates all words that contain it (lines with arrows). Since only one word can be present at a time, word nodes compete with inhibitory connections (lines with filled circles).Accounting for early grammatical development: from two-word combinations tomulti-word combinationsAndrew’s Pivotal constructions(Braine 1963)airplane by siren by mail come mama come clock on there up on there milk in there light up thereother bread other milk other pants other part other piece other pocket other shoe boot off light offmore car more cereal more fish more high more hot more juice more walk hi Calico hi mamano bed no down no fix no home no mama no more no pee see baby see trainall broke all buttoned all clean all done all dry all fix all messy all shut all through all wetthe pivot grammarBraine (1963) The Ontogeny of English Phrase Structure: the First Phrasetwo word classes at this stage: pivot and openthe pivotal class: never stands alone and always occurs either in first position and final positiona three-rule pivot grammar1) P1 + O;2) O + P2;3) O + O (e.g ball table, mommy sock…)The semantic relations approachBrown (1973) A First Language: the Early StagesSemantic relations-recurrence (more)-location (up there, in there)-possession,-agent-actionThe child knows some things about the causal relations among agents, actions, and objects, and this knowledge might form the basis for structures like agent-action-object (and also for possessor-possessed, object-location, object-attribute, and so on)Problems with the pivot grammar and the semantic relations approachFail to account for all early word combinations Fail to account for how young children get frompivot grammar or semantically based categories to the more abstract syntactic categories of adultsthe nativist view of early syntaxthe Continuity Hypothesis“In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the child’s grammatical rules should be drawn from the same basic rule types, and be composed of primitive symbols from the same class, as the grammatical rules attributed to adults in standard linguistic investigations.”(Pinker 1984:7)“Children’s developing grammars can differ from the target, the adult grammar, only in ways in which adult grammars can differ from each other.”(Crain and Thornton 1998:31)problems with the nativist viewFails to deal with the problems of cross-linguistic variation and developmental change:-how children could “link”an abstract and unchanging universal grammar to the structures of a particular language.Fails to give a satisfactory account of why children’s early language looks very little like adult language.the nativist view: why early child grammar different from adult grammarPerformance and pragmatic limitationscf. Valian’s(1991) account of early null subjectsMaturation-certain aspects of grammar ‘mature’-time constraintLexicalism-grammatical categories and rules attached to lexical entries-interaction between grammar and lexiconTomasello(1992, 2000a, b, 2003)The usage-based accountitem-based learningGeneral cognitive processes involved in language learning-intention reading and cultural learning-analogy making and structure-mapping-structure combiningthe usage-based approach-intention reading and social learning“…a large part of language acquisition must be accomplished by means of some form of social or imitative learning.”(Tomasello2000:238)InputImitationContexts: daily routinesthe usage-based approachAnalogy making and structure-mapping“…human beings are capable of discerning similarities not only among objects on the basis of perceptual or functional features, but also among relational and event situations on a basis of acommon relational structure abstracted across particular objects involved.”(2000:241)-the function of a structure is as important as its form-salient intentional, causal, or spatial relations acquired earlier: early sentences revolve around these relationse.g. transitive verbs like give, tell, show, send,all have a ‘transfer’meaning and occur in NP+V+NP+NPthe usage-based approach-item-based learning“…the child initially learns individual, item-based linguistic constructions…upon comprehension and production of specific items on specific occasions of use.”(Tomasello2000:237-38) “…young children do not yet possess abstract and verb-general argument structure constructions into which different verbs may be substituted for one another as needed, but rather they areworking more concretely with verbs as individual lexical items whose syntactic behavior must be learned one by one.”((2000a:210-11)the Verb Island Hypothesis (Tomasello1992)Different verbs develop along different paths. Verbs operate as “individual islands of organization.”(1992:257)the usage-based approach-structure combining“Children learn various kinds of constructions from early in development-varying in both complexity and abstractness-and so when they want to express some new meaning, one thing they can do is to juxtapose or integrate those existing structures in some way.”(Tomasello2000:245)symbolic integration (Tomasello1992)A diary study of an English-speaking girl’s (T) verbs during theperiod from 16 months to 24 months of ageSymbolic integration(Tomasello1992)“From the point of view of Cognitive Linguistics, constructing a sentence is an act performed by a particular person speaking a particular language on a particular occasion for a particular purpose. The mental operation involved in this process are the same as those used in other domains of creative activity, although the material worked with –the structures and categories involved –are obviously unique to language. The mental operations used in sentence construction are referred to as processes of symbolic integration.”(p.226)Symbolic integration(Tomasello1992)“…cognitive processes involved in language acquisition are symbolic integration operations, that is, the operations used toproduce, and perhaps to comprehend, larger structures in which items from the inventory (including categories) are combined and coordinated into sentences. In the simplest cases, these are fairly straightforward mental combinations, concatenating two words, for example. Established structures with their own internalcomplexity can also be conjoined, usually in ways that preserve the previous ordering patterns of elements within the constituent structure. Most complexity is added when the coordinationamong established structures involves substituting one to another in some way.”(p.259-60)Symbolic integration: Tomasello(1992) How T constructs “See Daddy’s car”?See _____See MariaSee DaddySee thisSee Daddy’s carDaddy’s _____Daddy’s breadDaddy’s ballDaddy’s saladSymbolic integration: Tomasello (1992) operations involved in symbolic integration in T’s dataSubstitution Expansion Addition Coordination Close this door Close this window previous use new use⇒Read paper Read this book ⇒Read this book outsideRead this book Cereal down rug __down +Down __⇒⇒Evidence for the item-based learningObservational studies: spontaneous production Experimental studies: controlled experiments the age range of subjects: before 3 years of ageEvidence for the item-based learning:Tomasello(1992)“…T composed her more complex sentences using materials she had previously used in less complex sentences.”(p.234)“…roughly 92% of T’s first 271 three-or-more-word sentences involved only a single simple change from previous sentences with that same verb.”(p.236)“In almost all cases, the ordering within the two constituents (e.g. see ___ and Daddy’s ____ )is preserved.”(p.237)Lieven et al. (1997)11 English-speaking children’s production of multi-word combinations; children observed 1;0 to 3;0Pronoun use (case-marking)\Randomly using me/my and I in subject positionVerb argument structures\the first 20 utterances with a subject-verb-objectstructure\No distinction between prototypical and non-prototypical verb structures“The children's early utterances with two arguments and a verb were as often nonprototypical as prototypical and seemed to have developed from previous verb and direct object patterns, based around speci®c verbs like do, get, want, see and make which ful®lled the criteria of constructed positional patterns in our coding scheme. Again the basis of organization and development seems to be more related to speci®c lexical items than to any more generally underlying systematicities.”(Lieven et al., p.208)“Many of the children in the present study had groups of utterances united by wh-frames such as wheres x and whats x doing, and structures such as its x, its a x, theres a x and theres the x but our approach would suggest that we are not likely to ®nd that individual children have a fully ¯exible grasp of whquestions or of copula construction. Instead, they are building up utterances around one particular frame while ignoring others which, on the grounds of syntactic theory, ought to be related.”(Lieven et al 1997, p.209)Tomasello&Brooks (1998)Verb-specificity and verb-generalitySubjects: 16 children at 2.0 and 16 children at 2.5Methodology-Novel verbs used MEEK, TAM to describe a novel action-the meeking situation: involving a puppet pulling a small object upa ramp; meek was used to describe either the action of the puppetor the action of the object moving up-the tamming situation: involving a puppet pushing a small object, causing it to swing back and forth-the transitive and intransitive contexts-Test sentences:The puppy is meeking the ball. /The ball is meeking.The bear tammed the carrot./ The carrot is tamming.ProcedureThe child is exposed to one verb in a transitive context and the other one in an intransitive context.Questions raised to the child:‘What is going to happen now’‘What’s happening with the (patient)?’‘What is the (actor) doing?’ResultsThe researchers found that 2-year-old children who heard a transitive or intransitive novel verb only used the verb in the way as they heard it used: i.e. when children heard an intransitive verb, they only reproduced a similar intransitive utterance, even when they were encouraged to produce a transitive utterance.Verb-specificity is supported.Next week:The Development of Words and Word Meanings*Barrett, M. 1995. Early lexical development. In P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney(eds.), The Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge, MA.: Blackwell.*Golinkoff, M, Mervis, C., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. 1994. Early object labels: the case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language21:125-155. (photocopy)*Tardiff, T. 1996. Nouns are not always learned before verbs: evidence from Mandarin speakers' early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology32:492-504. (E-copy)。