1 |
On the Utility of Conjoint and Compositional Frames and Utterance
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Understanding the Developmental Dynamics of Subject Omission: The Role of Processing Limitations in Learning
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Simulating the Noun-Verb Asymmetry in the Productivity of Children’s Speech
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
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
|
|
7 |
Modelling the Development of Children’s use of Optional Infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Unifying cross-linguistic and within-language patterns of finiteness marking in MOSAIC
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
MOSAIC, a model that has already simulated cross-linguistic differences in the occurrence of the Optional Infinitive phenomenon, is applied to the simulation of the pattern of finiteness marking within Dutch. This within-language pattern, which includes verb placement, low rates of Optional Infinitives in Wh-questions and the correlation between finiteness marking and subject provision, has been taken as evidence for the view that children have correctly set the clause structure and inflectional parameters for their language. MOSAIC, which employs no built-in linguistic knowledge, clearly simulates the pattern of results as a function of its utterance-final bias, the same mechanism that is responsible for its successful simulation of the crosslinguistic data. These results suggest that both the crosslinguistic and within–language pattern of finiteness marking can be understood in terms of the interaction between a simple resource-limited learning mechanism and the distributional statistics of the input to which it is exposed. Thus, these phenomena do not provide any evidence for abstract or innate knowledge on the part of the child.
|
|
Keyword:
acquisition of language; crosslinguistic; innate knowledge; MOSAIC; Optional Infinitive; Wh-questions
|
|
URL: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/732
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
9 |
Simulating the cross-linguistic development of optional infinitive errors in MOSAIC.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
Simulating optional infinitive errors in child speech through the omission of sentence-internal elements.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Resolving ambiguities in the extraction of syntactic categories through chunking.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Simulating the temporal reference of Dutch and English Root Infinitives.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
Modelling syntactic development in a cross-linguistic context
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
The role of input size and generativity in simulating language acquisition.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
15 |
Modelling children's negation errors using probabilistic learning in MOSAIC.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Modelling the development of Dutch Optional Infinitives in MOSAIC.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Subject omission in children's language; The case for performance limitations in learning.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
Modeling the optional infinite stage in MOSAIC: A generalization to Dutch
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|