6 found
Sort by:
  1. Jennifer Culbertson, Paul Smolensky & Colin Wilson (2013). Cognitive Biases, Linguistic Universals, and Constraint‐Based Grammar Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (3):392-424.
    According to classical arguments, language learning is both facilitated and constrained by cognitive biases. These biases are reflected in linguistic typology—the distribution of linguistic patterns across the world's languages—and can be probed with artificial grammar experiments on child and adult learners. Beginning with a widely successful approach to typology (Optimality Theory), and adapting techniques from computational approaches to statistical learning, we develop a Bayesian model of cognitive biases and show that it accounts for the detailed pattern of results of artificial (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jennifer Culbertson & Paul Smolensky (2012). A Bayesian Model of Biases in Artificial Language Learning: The Case of a Word‐Order Universal. Cognitive Science 36 (8):1468-1498.
  3. Jennifer Culbertson, Paul Smolensky & Géraldine Legendre (2012). Learning Biases Predict a Word Order Universal. Cognition 122 (3):306-329.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jennifer Culbertson & Steven Gross (2011). Revisited Linguistic Intuitions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):639 - 656.
    Michael Devitt ([2006a], [2006b]) argues that, insofar as linguists possess better theories about language than non-linguists, their linguistic intuitions are more reliable. (Culbertson and Gross [2009]) presented empirical evidence contrary to this claim. Devitt ([2010]) replies that, in part because we overemphasize the distinction between acceptability and grammaticality, we misunderstand linguists' claims, fall into inconsistency, and fail to see how our empirical results can be squared with his position. We reply in this note. Inter alia we argue that Devitt's focus (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Steven Gross & Jennifer Culbertson (2011). Revisited Linguistic Intuitions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):639-656.
    Michael Devitt ([2006a], [2006b]) argues that, insofar as linguists possess better theories about language than non-linguists, their linguistic intuitions are more reliable. ( Culbertson and Gross [2009] ) presented empirical evidence contrary to this claim. Devitt ([2010]) replies that, in part because we overemphasize the distinction between acceptability and grammaticality, we misunderstand linguists’ claims, fall into inconsistency, and fail to see how our empirical results can be squared with his position. We reply in this note. Inter alia we argue that (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Jennifer Culbertson & Steven Gross (2009). Are Linguists Better Subjects? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):721-736.
    Who are the best subjects for judgment tasks intended to test grammatical hypotheses? Michael Devitt ( [2006a] , [2006b] ) argues, on the basis of a hypothesis concerning the psychology of such judgments, that linguists themselves are. We present empirical evidence suggesting that the relevant divide is not between linguists and non-linguists, but between subjects with and without minimally sufficient task-specific knowledge. In particular, we show that subjects with at least some minimal exposure to or knowledge of such tasks tend (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation