ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchTutorial1 Jun 2015

Computational Modeling for Language Acquisition: A Tutorial With Syntactic Islands

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0362

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Given the growing prominence of computational modeling in the acquisition research community, we present a tutorial on how to use computational modeling to investigate learning strategies that underlie the acquisition process. This is useful for understanding both typical and atypical linguistic development.

    Method

    We provide a general overview of why modeling can be a particularly informative tool and some general considerations when creating a computational acquisition model. We then review a concrete example of a computational acquisition model for complex structural knowledge referred to as syntactic islands. This includes an overview of syntactic islands knowledge, a precise definition of the acquisition task being modeled, the modeling results, and how to meaningfully interpret those results in a way that is relevant for questions about knowledge representation and the learning process.

    Conclusions

    Computational modeling is a powerful tool that can be used to understand linguistic development. The general approach presented here can be used to investigate any acquisition task and any learning strategy, provided both are precisely defined.

    References

    • Alishahi, A. (2010). Computational modeling of human language acquisition.Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 3(1), 1–107.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition.Cognitive Science, 32, 789–834.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants.Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations.In S. Anderson, & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 237–286). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
      Google Scholar
    • Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (Vol. 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. New York, NY: Sage.
      Google Scholar
    • Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers?.D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94–128). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • de Villiers, J., & Roeper, T. (1995). Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children.Journal of Child Language, 22, 389–404.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., Bland-Stewart, L., & Pearson, B. (2008). Answering hard questions: Wh-movement across dialects and disorder.Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(1), 67–103.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Engdahl, E. (1980). Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency.In J. T. Jensen (Ed.), Cahiers linguisticques d'Ottawa [Ottawa papers in linguistics]: Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 89–108). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa, Department of Linguistics.
      Google Scholar
    • Estes, K. G., Evans, J. L., Alibali, M. W., & Saffran, J. R. (2007). Can infants map meaning to newly segmented words? Statistical segmentation and word learning.Psychological Science, 18, 254–260.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Frazier, L., & Flores D'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch.Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Freudenthal, D., & Alishahi, A. (2014). Computational models of language development.In P. J. Brooks, & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (pp. 92–97). New York, NY: Sage.
      Google Scholar
    • Gomez, R. L., & Gerken, L. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge.Cognition, 70(2), 109–135.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Goodluck, H., Foley, M., & Sedivy, J. (1992). Adjunct islands and acquisition.In H. Goodluck (Ed.), Island constraints (pp. 181–194). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
      Google Scholar
    • Hagstrom, P. A. (1998). Decomposing questions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
      Google Scholar
    • Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
      Google Scholar
    • Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
      Google Scholar
    • Kol, S., Nir, B., & Wintner, S. (2014). Computational evaluation of the traceback method.Journal of Child Language, 41(1), 176–199.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government.Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235–289.
      Google Scholar
    • Lidz, J., & Gagliardi, A. (2015). How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning.Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 333–352.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Matusevych, Y., Alishahi, A., & Vogt, P. (2013). Automatic generation of naturalistic child–adult interaction data.In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2996–3001). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
      Google Scholar
    • Mintz, T. (2006). Finding the verbs: Distributional cues to categories available to young learners.In K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 31–63). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2015). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge.Language Acquisition, 22, 158–192. doi:10.1080/10489223.2014.943903
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Pearl, L. (2010). Using computational modeling in language acquisition research.In E. Blon, & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
      Google Scholar
    • Pearl, L. (2014). Evaluating learning strategy components: Being fair.Language, 90(3), e107–e114.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Pearl, L., & Goldwater, S. (in press). Statistical learning, inductive bias, and Bayesian inference in language acquisition.In J. Lidz, W. Snyder, & J. Pater (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Pearl, L., & Mis, B. (2011). How far can indirect evidence take us? Anaphoric One revisited.In L. Carlson, C. Höschler, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 879–884). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
      Google Scholar
    • Pearl, L., & Mis, B. (in press). The role of indirect positive evidence in syntactic acquisition: A look at anaphoric one.Language.
      Google Scholar
    • Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013a). Computational models of acquisition for islands.In J. Sprouse, & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Experimental syntax and islands effects (pp. 109–131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013b). Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem.Language Acquisition, 20, 19–64.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backward transitional probabilities.Cognition, 113(2), 244–247.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena.Language, 82, 795–823.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Phillips, L., & Pearl, L. (2014a). Bayesian inference as a cross-linguistic word segmentation strategy: Always learning useful things.In Proceedings of the Computational and Cognitive Models of Language Acquisition and Language Processing Workshop (pp. 9–13). Gothenburg, Sweden: EACL.
      Google Scholar
    • Phillips, L., & Pearl, L. (2014b). Bayesian inference as a viable cross-linguistic word segmentation strategy: It's all about what's useful.In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2775–2780). Quebec City, Quebec, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.
      Google Scholar
    • Phillips, L., & Pearl, L. (in press). The utility of cognitive plausibility in language acquisition modeling: Evidence from word segmentation.Cognitive Science.
      Google Scholar
    • Räsänen, O. (2012). Computational modeling of phonetic and lexical learning in early language acquisition: Existing models and future directions.Speech Communication, 54, 975–997.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rizzi, L. (1982). Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition.In L. Rizzi (Ed.), Issues in Italian syntax (pp. 49–76). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
      Google Scholar
    • Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. (2011). The acquisition path for wh-questions.In J. de Villiers, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 189–246). New York, NY: Springer.
      Google Scholar
    • Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
      Google Scholar
    • Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996, December13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants.Science, 274, 1926–1928.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy.Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 329–341.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects.Language, 88(1), 82–124.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location.Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language.American Psychologist, 29, 103–114.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects.Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.
      Google Scholar
    • Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children.Cognition, 40(1), 21–81.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wang, H., & Mintz, T. (2008). A dynamic learning model for categorizing words using frames.In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 525–536). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources