2 |
On the Utility of Conjoint and Compositional Frames and Utterance
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German and English Root Infinitives in MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Does chess need intelligence? – A study with young chess players
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Understanding the Developmental Dynamics of Subject Omission: The Role of Processing Limitations in Learning
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
Simulating the Noun-Verb Asymmetry in the Productivity of Children’s Speech
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words
|
|
Jones, G; Gobet, F; Pine, J M. - : Blackwell Publishing. The definitive version is available at onlinelibrary.wiley.com, 2007
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Modelling the Development of Children’s use of Optional Infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Unifying cross-linguistic and within-language patterns of finiteness marking in MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
On the resolution of ambiguities in the extraction of syntactic categories through chunking
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Simulating the cross-linguistic development of optional infinitive errors in MOSAIC.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
15 |
Simulating optional infinitive errors in child speech through the omission of sentence-internal elements.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Resolving ambiguities in the extraction of syntactic categories through chunking.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Simulating the temporal reference of Dutch and English Root Infinitives.
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Hoekstra & Hyams (1998) claim that the overwhelming majority of Dutch children’s Root Infinitives (RIs) are used to refer to modal (not realised) events, whereas in English speaking children, the temporal reference of RIs is free. Hoekstra & Hyams attribute this difference to qualitative differences in how temporal reference is carried by the Dutch infinitive and the English bare form. Ingram & Thompson (1996) advocate an input-driven account of this difference and suggest that the modal reading of German (and Dutch) RIs is caused by the fact that infinitive forms are predominantly used in modal contexts. This paper investigates whether an input-driven account can explain the differential reading of RIs in Dutch and English. To this end, corpora of English and Dutch Child Directed Speech were fed through MOSAIC, a computational model that has already been used to simulate the basic Optional Infinitive phenomenon. Infinitive forms in the input were tagged for modal or non-modal reference based on the sentential context in which they appeared. The output of the model was compared to the results of corpus studies and recent experimental data which call into question the strict distinction between Dutch and English advocated by Hoekstra & Hyams.
|
|
Keyword:
Child Directed Speech; Dutch; English; German; modal; MOSAIC; Root Infinitives; temporal reference
|
|
URL: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/778
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
18 |
Modelling syntactic development in a cross-linguistic context
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
The role of input size and generativity in simulating language acquisition.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
Modelling children's negation errors using probabilistic learning in MOSAIC.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|