Modeling the learning of the Person Case Constraint

Many domains of linguistic research posit feature bundles as an explanation for various phenomena. Such hypotheses are often evaluated on their simplicity (or parsimony). We take a complementary approach. Specifically, we evaluate different hypotheses about the representation of person features in syntax on the basis of their implications for learning the Person Case Constraint (PCC). The PCC refers to a phenomenon where certain combinations of clitics (pronominal bound morphemes) are disallowed with ditransitive verbs. We compare a simple theory of the PCC, where person features are represented as atomic units, to a feature-based theory of the PCC, where person features are represented as feature bundles. We use Bayesian modeling to compare these theories, using data based on realistic proportions of clitic combinations from childdirected speech. We find that both theories can learn the target grammar given enough data, but that the feature-based theory requires significantly less data, suggesting that developmental trajectories could provide insight into syntactic representations in this domain.

[1]  Carmen Aguirre.  Early verb development in one Spanish-speaking child , 2003 .

[2]  S. Suter.  Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children , 2005, European Journal of Pediatrics.

[3]  E. Bonet,et al.  The person-case constraint: a morphological approach , 1994 .

[4]  M. Řezáč,et al.  Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC Effects , 2003 .

[5]  Dagmar Bittner,et al.  Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition : a cross-linguistic perspective , 2003 .

[6]  Naomi Feldman,et al.  Learning an Input Filter for Argument Structure Acquisition , 2017, CMCL@EACL.

[7]  David Adger,et al.  Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach☆ , 2010 .

[8]  D. Pesetsky,et al.  The Syntax of Valuation and the Interpretability of Features , 2006 .

[9]  B. MacWhinney.  The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk , 1992 .

[10]  J. Gawroński.  Amsterdam , 2008, Water in Times of Climate Change.

[11]  Hagit Borer,et al.  Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages , 1984 .

[12]  Lisa S. Pearl,et al.  The acquisition of linking theories : A Tolerance Principle approach to deriving UTAH and rUTAH , 2018 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[14]  Bonet i Alsina,et al.  Morphology after syntax : pronominal clitics in romance , 1991 .

[15]  Lisa Pearl,et al.  Syntactic Islands and Learning Biases: Combining Experimental Syntax and Computational Modeling to Investigate the Language Acquisition Problem , 2013 .

[16]  Thomas Graf,et al.  Monotonicity as an effective theory of morphosyntactic variation , 2019, J. Lang. Model..

[17]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Linking Parser Development to Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge , 2015 .

[18]  Wendy K. Wilkins,et al.  Phrasal and clausal architecture : syntactic derivation and interpretation : in honor of Joseph E. Emonds , 2007 .

[19]  Jackson L. Lee,et al.  Working with CHAT transcripts in Python , 2016 .

[20]  Timothy Ho,et al.  An argument from acquisition: Comparing English metrical stress representations by how learnable they are from child-directed speech , 2017 .

[21]  A. Nevins.  The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects , 2007 .

[22]  A. Calabrese.  A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures , 1995 .

[23]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[24]  An Algebraic Perspective on the Person Case Constraint , 2012 .