Language learning in infancy: Does the empirical evidence support a domain specific language acquisition device?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):641 – 671 (2008)
Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments have convinced many linguists and philosophers of language that a domain specific language acquisition device (LAD) is necessary to account for language learning. Here we review empirical evidence that casts doubt on the necessity of this domain specific device. We suggest that more attention needs to be paid to the early stages of language acquisition. Many seemingly innate language-related abilities have to be learned over the course of several months. Further, the language input contains rich stochastic information that can be accessed by domain-general learning mechanisms. Computer simulation has shown how mechanisms that are not domain specific can exploit the information contained in language. We conclude that (i) Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments need to be conceptually clarified and (ii) more empirical research needs to be carried out before we can rule out that data driven general purpose mechanisms can account for language learning.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael R. Brent (1999). Speech Segmentation and Word Discovery: A Computational Perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (8):294-301.
Michael R. Brent & Timothy A. Cartwright (1996). Distributional Regularity and Phonotactic Constraints Are Useful for Segmentation. Cognition 61 (1-2):93-125.
Andrew Brook & Robert J. Stainton (2000). Knowledge and Mind: A Philosophical Introduction. A Bradford Book.
Mario Augusto Bunge (2003). Philosophical Dictionary. Prometheus Books.
Richard W. Byrne & Anne E. Russon (1998). Learning by Imitation: A Hierarchical Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):667-684.
Citations of this work BETA
Christina Behme (2010). Does Kinship Terminology Provide Evidence for or Against Universal Grammar? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):381 - 382.
Similar books and articles
Philip Gerrans & Valerie E. Stone (2008). Generous or Parsimonious Cognitive Architecture? Cognitive Neuroscience and Theory of Mind. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):121-141.
Nick Chater & Morten H. Christiansen (2010). Language Acquisition Meets Language Evolution. Cognitive Science 34 (7):1131-1157.
Heather Bortfeld (2004). Which Came First: Infants Learning Language or Motherese? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):505-506.
Steven Gross (2001). Review of What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 110 (1):91-94.
Aarre Laakso & Paco Calvo (2011). How Many Mechanisms Are Needed to Analyze Speech? A Connectionist Simulation of Structural Rule Learning in Artificial Language Acquisition. Cognitive Science 35 (7):1243-1281.
David Kirsh (1992). PDP Learnability and Innate Knowledge of Language. In S. Davis (ed.), Connectionism: Theory and practice (Volume III of The Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science. Oxford University press.
Fiona Cowie (1997). The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Synthese 111 (1):17-51.
Added to index2009-03-08
Total downloads74 ( #17,580 of 1,096,620 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #51,759 of 1,096,620 )
How can I increase my downloads?