A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition
Open accessAbstract
Many researchers believe that there is a logical problem at the centre of language acquisition theory. According to this analysis, the input to the learner is too inconsistent and incomplete to determine the acquisition of grammar. Moreover, when corrective feedback is provided, children tend to ignore it. As a result, language learning must rely on additional constraints from universal grammar. To solve this logical problem, theorists have proposed a series of constraints and parameterizations on the form of universal grammar. Plausible alternatives to these constraints include: conservatism, item-based learning, indirect negative evidence, competition, cue construction, and monitoring. Careful analysis of child language corpora has cast doubt on claims regarding the absence of positive exemplars. Using demonstrably available positive data, simple learning procedures can be formulated for each of the syntactic structures that have traditionally motivated invocation of the logical problem. Within the perspective of emergentist theory (MacWhinney, 2001), the operation of a set of mutually supportive processes is viewed as providing multiple buffering for developmental outcomes. However, the fact that some syntactic structures are more difficult to learn than others can be used to highlight areas of intense grammatical competition and processing load.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The need to account for effects of both absolute and relative frequency forces us to posit particular types of acquisition model that we may not otherwise have considered, specifically those that build in some form of competition between words with similar meanings and/or surface forms.
“The need to account for effects of both absolute and relative frequency forces us to posit particular types of acquisition model that we may not otherwise have considered; specifically those that build in some form of competition between words with similar meanings and/or surface forms (MacWhinney, 2004).”
From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as MacWhinney, 2004
Cites
Structure Dependence in Grammar Formation
Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987) · Language · doi:10.2307/415004 · Cited by 402 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Crain & Nakayama (1987) attempted to get around this problem by eliciting these forms from children directly.”
BackgroundConspiracy effects in word pronunciation
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1987) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(87)90105-7 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How social contexts support and shape language development☆
HOFF, E. (2006) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002 · Cited by 1,853 · see citing works
Mirror neurons: from origin to function
Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., & Heyes, C. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13000903 · Cited by 632 · see citing works
The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition
AMBRIDGE, B., KIDD, E., ROWLAND, C. F., & THEAKSTON, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s030500091400049x · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax
Kidd, E. (2012) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025405 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
One model for the learning of language
Yang, Y., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2021865119 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- MACWHINNEY, B.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- MACWHINNEY, BRIAN
- ORCID
- MACWHINNEY, BRIAN
- Venue
- Journal of Child Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 883-914
- ISSN
- 0305-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7602
- PMC
- PMC1876779
- OpenAlex
- W2106391276
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 16.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Child Language (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- KiltHub Repository
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC008524)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD023998, R01HD051698)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- universal grammar, grammar learning, corrective feedback, positive evidence, negative evidence, conservatism, child language corpora, syntactic learning, parameterization
- MeSH terms
- Child Language, Child, Preschool, Feedback, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Logic, Mother-Child Relations, Psycholinguistics, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary
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