1 / 18

Language Acquisition

Language Acquisition. 5. Elena Lieven, MPI-EVA, Leipzig School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester. UG Predictions. U-B Predictions. Grammatical Development. across the board emergence of abstractions within the domain of a certain parameter.

mia-paul
Download Presentation

Language Acquisition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Language Acquisition 5. Elena Lieven, MPI-EVA, Leipzig School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  2. UG Predictions U-B Predictions Grammatical Development across the board emergence of abstractionswithin the domain of a certain parameter abstractions initiallylocal - then gradual, piecemeal abstractions based on specifiable characteristics of input LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  3. Factors affecting learning • Token frequency • Type frequency • Consistency • Complexity • Prosodic information • Semantic information • Pragmatic information BUT HOW ARE THESE INTEGRATED? LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  4. BOY GIRL GIRL BOY NOVELACTION 1 NOVELACTION 2 She’s blicking him Preferential looking vs Act-out or Production Children aged 1;9 and 2;1 look longer at a picture that matches the correct agent of a novel action that at another picture in which the same noun is used for the patient but with a different novel action Gertner, Fisher & Eisengart, in press LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  5. Does this conflict with the verb island hypothesis? YES, in its strongest form Does this reflect early and fully abstract knowledge of linking? Not necessarily LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  6. No verb is an island![McClure et al. in press] • MLU of utterances with verbs in Stage 1 • MLU of utterances with old verbs in Stage 2 • MLU of utterances with new verbs in Stage 2 MLU old verbs stage 2 > MLU verbs stage 1 DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWN VERBS MLU new verbs stage 2 < MLU old verbs stage 2 NEW VERBS HAVE LESS DEVELOPED ARGUMENT STRUCTURES MLU new verbs stage 2 > MLU verbs stage 1 VALUE ADDED!! NEW VERBS HAVE GAINED SOMETHING FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF OLD VERBS LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  7. Auxiliary provision for BE and HAVE [Theakston et al, 2005] Mcr corpus: 2;0 – 3;0: provision still only a mean of 50% at 3;0 Specific subject-auxiliary combinations, e.g. : NP’s, he’s, it’s, Proper-Noun’s, they’re, they’ve, I’m, I’ve, you’re, you’ve • Frequency in M’s speech predicts order of acquisition – except for you, which is acquired late despite very high input frequency • Early acquired, high frequency, forms show higher levels of provision – • except for I, which is acquired early but shows very high omission LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  8. It’s, He’s : - modelled frequently in input - can be used in same way as adult I/you: - have to be reversed - child is more interested in talking about Ithan you - maybe this overrides relative frequency of you But why are there such high rates of omission with I ? LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  9. Maybe children learn early on that Ican substitute for you in patterns with you learned from questions in the input Mother:What’reyou doingnext? Child:pink, orange,I doingorange Mother:Are you drawing? Child:I drawing LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  10. Strengthening representations[Chang, Dell & Bock, in press] Discrimination task Model could reliably (though not 100%) discriminate after 4000 epochs - can be done with partial representations Production task Model could produce transitive with novel verb after 20,000 epochs - needs a full representation LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  11. Methodologies LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  12. Experimental methods • Allows us to pit one hypothesis against another • Allows us to test children’s abstract knowledge (with novel or low frequency items) • One experiment never answers the question! • Impossible to control everything in an experiment • What about the children who are dropped/don’t respond? LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  13. Novel transitives in 2-year-olds • Experiments give different ages for children’s ability to deal with novel verbs • in transitive constructions • Fisher et al. Preferential looking • Dittmar et al. Pointing and preferential looking • Smith et al. Weird linking • Chan et al., Preferential looking and Act-out • Wittek & T Novel transitive production • These differences should be explicable by: • partial representations being enough for some tasks but not others • different tasks requiring different strengths of representation • irrelevant task demands (often called performance limitations) LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  14. Modelling • Allows us to investigate distributional properties • Allows us to play with the interaction between different sources of information • A lot depends on the precise way in which the information is given to the model • The model almost certainly doesn’t do it the same way as the child • So far not much modelling of semantics LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  15. Naturalistic methods • In principle, the participants are not constrained • Allows for detailed developmental analyses • Recording situations may be too limited • One needs to use sophisticated analytic tools to get beyond description LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  16. Construction grammars Advantages: • Form-meaning mappings integral • Cline from idiomatic through to abstract • Explicit attempts to develop theory of inheritance links between constructions LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  17. Some issues Are children learning constructions? • Start with sub-parts [e.g.SV, VO, NPs] • And perhaps with supra-parts [Discourse pairs] Must children always learn form with function? • Correct ungrammatical to grammatical but semantically wrong: • Kidd et al: Complement taking verbs • Matthews et al: Conjoined NPs to correct WWO • Abbot-Smith et al: weird VS intransitives to semantically anomalous SVO LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

  18. Finally……. • There is no doubt that frequency of various kinds plays a role throughout learning and in the adult system • There is no doubt that children’s language develops in abstraction and complexity • The relationship between characterising the adult system (linguistics), explaining grammaticalisation and explaining language development are in an increasingly healthy relationship • There is real hope of moving this scientific endeavour forward in an exciting and productive way Thank you! LOT 5: 16-20 jan06

More Related