We will be reading selections from the following three books, in addition to the articles below:
Chemla, E., Mintz, T., Bernal, S., & Christophe, A. (2009). Categorizing Words Using "Frequent Frames": What Cross-Linguistic Analyses Reveal About Distributional Acquisition Strategies. Developmental Science.
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.
Gerken, L. (2006). Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition, 98, B67-B74.
Goldwater, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Johnson, M. (2007). Distributional cues to word segmentation: Context is important. Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Gomez, R. & Gerken, L. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 178-186.
Gomez, R. & Lakusta, L. (2004). A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-month-old infants. Developmental Science, 7(5), 567-580.
Johnson, E. & Tyler, M. (forthcoming). Testing the Limits of Statistical Learning for Word Segmentation. Developmental Science.
Kam, X., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J., & Sakas, W. (2008). Bigrams and the Richness of the Stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32, 771-787.
Lany, J., Gómez, R., & Gerken, L. (2007). The Role of Prior Experience in Language Acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 481-507.
Legate, J. & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 151-162.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, pp. 3-43.
Maslen, R., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A Dense Corpus Study of Past Tense and Plural Overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1319-1333.
McClelland, J. & Patterson, K. (2002). 'Words or Rules' cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 464-465.
Mintz, T. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91-117.
Pearl, L. (forthcoming). Computational Models of Language Acquisition, Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research.
Pearl, L. (forthcoming). Learning English Metrical Phonology: When Probability Distributions Are Not Enough. Proceedings of GALANA 3, Cascadilla Press.
Pearl, L. & Lidz, J. (2009). When domain-general learning fails and when it succeeds: Identifying the contribution of domain-specificity. Language Learning & Development, 5(4), 235-265.
Pinker, S. (1995). Why the Child Holded the Baby Rabbits: A Case Study in Language Acquisition, in Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M. (eds.) An Invitation to Cognitive Science - 2nd Edition, 107-137.
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, G. & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9-50.
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
Takahashi, E. & Lidz, J. (2009). Beyond Statistical Learning in Syntax. Ms. University of Maryland, College Park.
Thompson, S. & Newport, E. (2007). Statistical Learning of Syntax: The Role of Transitional Probability. Language Learning and Development, 3, 1-42.
Valian, V. (2009). Input and innateness: Controversies in language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/M.I.T. Press., Chapter 2 draft.
Vallabha, G., McClelland, J., Pons, F., Werker, J., & Amano, S. (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., 104(33), 13273-13278.
Werker, J. (1995). Exploring Developmental Changes in Cross-language Speech Perception, Chapter 4 (pp.87-106) in Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M., Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Willits, J., Seidenberg, M., & Saffran, J. (2009). Verbs are LookING Good in Language Acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
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.
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.
Gerken, L. (2006). Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition, 98, B67-B74.
Goldwater, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Johnson, M. (2007). Distributional cues to word segmentation: Context is important. Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Gomez, R. & Gerken, L. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 178-186.
Gomez, R. & Lakusta, L. (2004). A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-month-old infants. Developmental Science, 7(5), 567-580.
Johnson, E. & Tyler, M. (forthcoming). Testing the Limits of Statistical Learning for Word Segmentation. Developmental Science.
Kam, X., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J., & Sakas, W. (2008). Bigrams and the Richness of the Stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32, 771-787.
Lany, J., Gómez, R., & Gerken, L. (2007). The Role of Prior Experience in Language Acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 481-507.
Legate, J. & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 151-162.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, pp. 3-43.
Maslen, R., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A Dense Corpus Study of Past Tense and Plural Overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1319-1333.
McClelland, J. & Patterson, K. (2002). 'Words or Rules' cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 464-465.
Mintz, T. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91-117.
Pearl, L. (forthcoming). Computational Models of Language Acquisition, Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research.
Pearl, L. (forthcoming). Learning English Metrical Phonology: When Probability Distributions Are Not Enough. Proceedings of GALANA 3, Cascadilla Press.
Pearl, L. & Lidz, J. (2009). When domain-general learning fails and when it succeeds: Identifying the contribution of domain-specificity. Language Learning & Development, 5(4), 235-265.
Pinker, S. (1995). Why the Child Holded the Baby Rabbits: A Case Study in Language Acquisition, in Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M. (eds.) An Invitation to Cognitive Science - 2nd Edition, 107-137.
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, G. & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9-50.
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
Takahashi, E. & Lidz, J. (2009). Beyond Statistical Learning in Syntax. Ms. University of Maryland, College Park.
Thompson, S. & Newport, E. (2007). Statistical Learning of Syntax: The Role of Transitional Probability. Language Learning and Development, 3, 1-42.
Valian, V. (2009). Input and innateness: Controversies in language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/M.I.T. Press., Chapter 2 draft.
Vallabha, G., McClelland, J., Pons, F., Werker, J., & Amano, S. (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., 104(33), 13273-13278.
Werker, J. (1995). Exploring Developmental Changes in Cross-language Speech Perception, Chapter 4 (pp.87-106) in Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M., Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Willits, J., Seidenberg, M., & Saffran, J. (2009). Verbs are LookING Good in Language Acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
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.