We will be reading selections from the following three books, in addition to the articles below:
Pena, M., Bonatti, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002). Signal-Driven Computations in Speech Processing. Science, 298, 604-607.
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
Stager, C. & Werker, J. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than word-learning tasks. Nature, 388 , 381-382.
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
Stager, C. & Werker, J. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than word-learning tasks. Nature, 388 , 381-382.
In addition, you will be required to choose one of the articles below (or one of a similar nature, with the instructor's approval) to write a final paper on.
Dietrich, C., Swingley, D., & Werker, J.F. (2007). Native language governs interpretation of salient speech sound differences at 18 months. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, 16027-16031.Gambell, T. & Yang, C. (2006). Word Segmentation: Quick but not dirty. Manuscript, Yale University.
Gomez, R. & Lakusta, L. (2004). A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-month-old infants. Developmental Science, 7(5), 567-580.
Mintz, T. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91-117.
Pinker & Ullman + McClelland & Patterson (2002) debate series:
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456-463.
McClelland, J. & Patterson, K. (2002). 'Words or Rules' cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 464-465.
McClelland, J. & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 465-472.
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. (2002). Combination and structures, not gradedness, is the issue. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 472-474.
Pullum & Scholz + Legate & Yang (2002) debate series:
Pullum, G. & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9-50.
Legate, J. & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 151-162.
Thompson, S. & Newport, E. (2007). Statistical Learning of Syntax: The Role of Transitional Probability. Language Learning and Development, 3, 1-42.
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Chapter 3
Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 451-456.
Yang, C. (2005). On Productivity. Yearbook of Language Variation, 5, 265-302.
2. Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. USA: Basic Books.
3. Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M. (1995). An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Vol.1: Language. MIT: The MIT Press.