The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition
Open accessAbstract
The rapidity with which children acquire language is one of the mysteries of human cognition. A view held widely for the past 30 years is that children master language by means of a language-specific learning device. An earlier proposal, which has generated renewed interest, is that children make use of domain-general, associative learning mechanisms. However, our current lack of knowledge of the actual learning mechanisms involved during infancy makes it difficult to determine the relative contributions of innate and acquired knowledge. A recent approach to studying this problem exposes infants to artificial languages and assesses the resulting learning. In this article, we review studies using this paradigm that have led to a number of exciting discoveries regarding the learning mechanisms available during infancy. These studies raise important issues with respect to whether such mechanisms are general or specific to language, the extent to which they reflect statistical learning versus symbol manipulation, and the extent to which such mechanisms change with development. The fine-grained characterizations of infant learning mechanisms that this approach permits should result in a better understanding of the relative contributions of, and the dynamic between, innate and learned factors in language acquisition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Of Human Bonding: Newborns Prefer Their Mothers' Voices
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7375928 · Cited by 2,317
Infants' Preference for the Predominant Stress Patterns of English Words
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1131210 · Cited by 981
Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category
PINE, J. M., LIEVEN, E. V. M., & ROWLAND, C. F. (1998) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807 · Cited by 214
Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what children do know?’
ROWLAND, C. F., & PINE, J. M. (2000) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000999004055 · Cited by 199
Cited by
Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code
Kuhl, P. K. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1533 · Cited by 2,291
Ellis, N. C. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102002024 · Cited by 2,230
Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states
Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0016923 · Cited by 1,261
Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08003543 · Cited by 1,174
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0707835105 · Cited by 941
Metadata
- Authors
- Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 178-186
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132730112
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01467-4
- The paper
- Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01467-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.