Empiricist Solutions to Nativist Puzzles by means of Unsupervised TSG

While the debate between nativism and empiricism exists since several decades, surprisingly few common learning problems have been proposed for assessing the two opposing views. Most empiricist researchers have focused on a relatively small number of linguistic problems, such as Auxiliary Fronting or Anaphoric One. In the current paper we extend the number of common test cases to a much larger series of problems related to wh-questions, relative clause formation, topicalization, extraposition from NP and left dislocation. We show that these hard cases can be empirically solved by an unsupervised tree-substitution grammar inferred from child-directed input in the Adam corpus (Childes database).

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[2]  Dan Klein,et al.  The Surprising Variance in Shortest-Derivation Parsing , 2011, ACL.

[3]  Dan Klein,et al.  Natural language grammar induction with a generative constituent-context model , 2005, Pattern Recognit..

[4]  Rens Bod,et al.  An All-Subtrees Approach to Unsupervised Parsing , 2006, ACL.

[5]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Indirect Evidence and the Poverty of the Stimulus: The Case of Anaphoric One , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  B. MacWhinney.  A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition , 2004, Journal of Child Language.

[7]  David Chiang,et al.  Better k-best Parsing , 2005, IWPT.

[8]  S. Crain.  Language acquisition in the absence of experience , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  An empirical generative framework for computational modeling of language acquisition. , 2010, Journal of child language.

[10]  Phil Blunsom,et al.  Inducing Tree-Substitution Grammars , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[11]  Barbara C. Scholz,et al.  Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments , 2002 .

[12]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Uncovering the Richness of the Stimulus: Structure Dependence and Indirect Statistical Evidence , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Christoph Teichmann.  Reducing the Size of the Representation for the uDOP-Estimate , 2011, ULNLP@EMNLP.

[14]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics , 2006 .

[15]  Shalom Lappin,et al.  Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus , 2011 .

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

[17]  R. Borsley.  Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach , 1991 .

[18]  S. Waxman,et al.  What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months , 2003, Cognition.

[19]  Khalil Sima'an,et al.  Data-Oriented Parsing , 2003 .

[20]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[21]  Lidiya Tornyova,et al.  Bigrams and the Richness of the Stimulus , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Khalil Sima'an,et al.  A Consistent and Efficient Estimator for Data-Oriented Parsing , 2005, J. Autom. Lang. Comb..

[23]  David Adger,et al.  Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach , 2003 .

[24]  Matt Post,et al.  Bayesian Learning of a Tree Substitution Grammar , 2009, ACL.

[25]  Elena Lieven,et al.  Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches , 2013 .

[26]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Alexander Clark,et al.  Learning Auxiliary Fronting with Grammatical Inference , 2006, CoNLL.

[28]  Rens Bod,et al.  From Exemplar to Grammar: A Probabilistic Analogy-Based Model of Language Learning , 2009, Cogn. Sci..