The Experts below are selected from a list of 639 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Julian M. Pine - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Is Structure Dependence an Innate Constraint? New Experimental Evidence From Children's Complex‐Question Production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

  • is structure dependence an Innate Constraint new experimental evidence from children s complex question production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

Ben Ambridge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Is Structure Dependence an Innate Constraint? New Experimental Evidence From Children's Complex‐Question Production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

  • is structure dependence an Innate Constraint new experimental evidence from children s complex question production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

Caroline F. Rowland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Is Structure Dependence an Innate Constraint? New Experimental Evidence From Children's Complex‐Question Production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

  • is structure dependence an Innate Constraint new experimental evidence from children s complex question production
    Cognitive Science, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ben Ambridge, Caroline F. Rowland, Julian M. Pine
    Abstract:

    According to Crain and Nakayama (1987), when forming complex yes/no questions, children do not make errors such as Is the boy who smoking is crazy? because they have Innate knowledge of structure dependence and so will not move the auxiliary from the relative clause. However, simple recurrent networks are also able to avoid such errors, on the basis of surface distributional properties of the input (Lewis & Elman, 2001; Reali & Christiansen, 2005). Two new elicited production studies revealed that (a) children occasionally produce structure-dependence errors and (b) the pattern of children's auxiliary-doubling errors (Is the boy who is smoking is crazy?) suggests a sensitivity to surface co-occurrence patterns in the input. This article concludes that current data do not provide any support for the claim that structure dependence is an Innate Constraint, and that it is possible that children form a structure-dependent grammar on the basis of exposure to input that exhibits this property.

Danielle Turton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Synchronic stratum-specific rates of application reflect diachronic change: morphosyntactic conditioning of variation in English /l/-darkening
    Papers in Historical Phonology, 2016
    Co-Authors: Danielle Turton
    Abstract:

    Phonological processes that exhibit morphosyntactic sensitivity can provide evidence of historical processes which have ascended through the grammar over time. English /l/-darkening shows such effects. Although syllable-based accounts state that light [l] occurs in onsets (e.g. l ight ) and dark [ɫ] in codas (e.g. du ll ), several studies report overapplication of darkening to onset /l/ in certain morphosyntactically defined positions: e.g. word-finally in phrases such as hea l it , and stem-finally before a suffix in words such as hea l -ing . Although many phonological theories attempt to account for such opacity, they cannot adequately account for the potential variability in application alongside this. The present paper explores these ideas through modelling data on /l/- darkening in English taken from Hayes’s (2000) Optimality Theoretic study. It is argued that a combined Stochastic Stratal OT approach to the data is an improvement over a parallel stochastic model (e.g. Boersma & Hayes 2001) because it avoids fixed Innate Constraint rankings, which are required to prevent the prediction of impossible grammars. Moreover, it is shown that observations about the diachronic life cycle of phonological processes enable us to deduce quantitative predictions about rates: should apply with lower frequency in smaller morphosyntactic domains.

  • Synchronic stratum-specific rates of application reflect diachronic change:
 morphosyntactic conditioning of variation in English /l/-darkening
    University of Edinburgh, 2016
    Co-Authors: Danielle Turton
    Abstract:

    Phonological processes that exhibit morphosyntactic sensitivity can provide evidence of historical processes which have ascended through the grammar over time. English /l/-darkening shows such effects. Although syllable-based accounts state that light [l] occurs in onsets (e.g. light) and dark [ɫ] in codas (e.g. dull), several studies report overapplication of darkening to onset /l/ in certain morphosyntactically defined positions: e.g. word-finally in phrases such as heal it, and stem-finally before a suffix in words such as heal-ing. Although many phonological theories attempt to account for such opacity, they cannot adequately account for the potential variability in application alongside this. The present paper explores these ideas through modelling data on /l/- darkening in English taken from Hayes’s (2000) Optimality Theoretic study. It is argued that a combined Stochastic Stratal OT approach to the data is an improvement over a parallel stochastic model (e.g. Boersma & Hayes 2001) because it avoids fixed Innate Constraint rankings, which are required to prevent the prediction of impossible grammars. Moreover, it is shown that observations about the diachronic life cycle of phonological processes enable us to deduce quantitative predictions about rates: should apply with lower frequency in smaller morphosyntactic domains

Paul Boersma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Universal Constraint rankings result from learning and evolution: invited talk
    Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Phonology and Morphology - SIGPHON '06, 2006
    Co-Authors: Paul Boersma
    Abstract:

    Optimality Theory has met with a bad press in the more emergentist (e.g. computational) literature for its reliance on Innate Constraints and even on Innate Constraint rankings (positional faithfulness, licensing by cue). In this talk I will show with computer simulations that even if the learner's initial grammar starts with a large number of Constraints that have no inherent bias towards unmarked or otherwise good sound systems, the learner will gradually turn the Constraint ranking into something resembling a universally unmarked sound system as an automatic result of input frequencies and imperfections of the transmission channel. It turns out that the parents' sound system is "semi-learnable": if the parents' sound system happens to be universally marked, the offspring will learn to mimic the quirks of this system to some extent, but they will tend to turn the language into a universally unmarked sound system within three generations or so. The conclusion will be that a bidirectional Optimality-Theoretic model of the grammar with two phonological and two phonetic representations is compatible with the view that there is no Innate phonological substance in language acquisition.

  • SIGMORPHON - Invited Talk: Universal Constraint Rankings Result from Learning and Evolution
    2006
    Co-Authors: Paul Boersma
    Abstract:

    Optimality Theory has met with a bad press in the more emergentist (e.g. computational) literature for its reliance on Innate Constraints and even on Innate Constraint rankings (positional faithfulness, licensing by cue). In this talk I will show with computer simulations that even if the learner’s initial grammar starts with a large number of Constraints that have no inherent bias towards unmarked or otherwise good sound systems, the learner will gradually turn the Constraint ranking into something resembling a universally unmarked sound system as an automatic result of input frequencies and imperfections of the transmission channel. It turns out that the parents’ sound system is ”semi-learnable”: if the parents’ sound system happens to be universally marked, the offspring will learn to mimic the quirks of this system to some extent, but they will tend to turn the language into a universally unmarked sound system within three generations or so. The conclusion will be that a bidirectional Optimality-Theoretic model of the grammar with two phonological and two phonetic representations is compatible with the view that there is no Innate phonological substance in language acquisition.