Input Effects Within a Constructionist Framework

Constructionist approaches to language hypothesize that grammar can be learned from the input using domain-general mechanisms. This emphasis has engendered a great deal of research—exemplified in the present issue—that seeks to illuminate the ways in which input-related factors can both drive and constrain constructional acquisition. In this commentary piece, we situate results reported by contributors to the present issue within the larger body of acquisition work in the constructionist framework. We address the importance of both type frequency and skewed input samples in the development of constructional categories and we compare different ways that the association between verbs and constructions can be measured, including through the use of conditional probabilities, lexical biases, and introspective judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  G. Zipf,et al.  The Psycho-Biology of Language , 1936 .

[2]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[4]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[5]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Joan L. Bybee.  Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[7]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .

[8]  V. Marchman,et al.  U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition , 1991, Cognition.

[9]  V. Marchman,et al.  From rote learning to system building: acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets , 1993, Cognition.

[10]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[11]  Yasuhiro Shirai,et al.  Discourse Motivations for Some Cognitive Acquisition Principles , 1994, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[12]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Regular morphology and the lexicon. , 1995 .

[13]  J. Elman,et al.  Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development , 1996 .

[14]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[15]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[16]  Donald Favareau.  The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain , 1998 .

[17]  D. Gentner,et al.  Similarity and the development of rules , 1998, Cognition.

[18]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[19]  A. Ninio.  Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity , 1999, Journal of Child Language.

[20]  M. Tomasello.  The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  J. Lewis,et al.  A Connectionist Investigtion of Linguistic Arguments from the Poverty of the Stimulus: Learning the Unlearnable , 2001 .

[22]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  S. Thompson.  “Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account , 2002 .

[24]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. , 2003, Developmental science.

[25]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions , 2003 .

[26]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Sampling children's spontaneous speech: how much is enough? , 2004, Journal of child language.

[27]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense , 2004 .

[28]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  Syntactic priming in young children , 2004 .

[29]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Learning argument structure generalizations , 2004 .

[30]  The Acquisition of Tense , 2004 .

[31]  Anat Ninio,et al.  Accelerated learning without semantic similarity: indirect objects , 2005 .

[32]  Devin M. Casenhiser,et al.  Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. , 2005, Developmental science.

[33]  Marianella Casasola,et al.  When less is more: how infants learn to form an abstract categorical representation of support. , 2005, Child development.

[34]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Structural Priming as Implicit Learning in Language Acquisition: The Persistence of Lexical and Structural Priming in 4-Year-Olds , 2006 .

[35]  J. Elman,et al.  Language input and semantic categories: a relation between cognition and early word learning , 2006, Journal of Child Language.

[36]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements , 2006 .

[37]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[38]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Poverty of the Stimulus? A Rational Approach , 2006 .

[39]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Constructions as categories of language , 2007 .

[40]  Jeremy K. Boyd,et al.  Comparatively speaking : a psycholinguistic study of optionality in grammar , 2007 .

[41]  Michael Ramscar,et al.  Linguistic Self-Correction in the Absence of Feedback: A New Approach to the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Comparison Facilitates Children's Learning of Names for Parts , 2007 .

[43]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Language as shaped by the brain. , 2008, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[44]  Amanda C. Brandone,et al.  Focusing on the relation: fewer exemplars facilitate children's initial verb learning and extension. , 2008, Developmental science.

[45]  S. Edelman,et al.  Learn locally, act globally: Learning language from variation set cues , 2008, Cognition.

[46]  Virginia Valian,et al.  Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension , 2008 .

[47]  Peter Gordon,et al.  Korean Speakers' Acquisition of the English Ditransitive Construction: The Role of Verb Prototype, Input Distribution, and Frequency , 2009 .

[48]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. , 2009 .

[49]  Stefanie Wulff,et al.  The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings , 2009 .

[50]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Linking Rule Acquisition in Novel Phrasal Constructions , 2009 .

[51]  Walcir Cardoso,et al.  Some Input on the Easy/Difficult Grammar Question: An Empirical Study , 2009 .

[52]  YouJin Kim,et al.  Syntactic Priming, Type Frequency, and EFL Learners' Production of Wh-Questions , 2009 .