Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:04:48.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Morphology and Language Acquisition

from Part VI - Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Constantine Lignos  and
Charles Yang
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 765 - 791
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, A. 2005. The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Downing, L. J., Hall, T. A., and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 17–43. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Albright, A., and Hayes, B.. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning, 58–69. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, A., and Hayes, B. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90.2, 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, M., and Badecker, W.. 2002. Inflectional regularity: Probing the nature of lexical representation in a cross-modal priming task. Journal of Memory and Language 46.4, 705–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2009. The Morphology of English Dialects: Verb-formation in Non-Standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, S. L.; Gleitman, L. R., and Gleitman, H.. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13.3, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atserias, J.; Casas, B., Comelles, E., González, M., Padró, L., and Padró, M.. 2006. Freeling 1.3: Syntactic and semantic services in an open-source NLP library. In Proceedings of LREC 6, 48–55.Google Scholar
Baerman, M.; Corbett, G. G., and Brown, D. (eds.) 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M.; Ketrez, N., and Nevins, A.. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87.1, 84–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, B. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23.4, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1982. Reorganizational process in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. R. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, 319–46. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brent, M.; Murthy, S., and Lundberg, A.. 1995. Discovering morphemic suffixes: A case study in minimum description length induction. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 264–71.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., and Hanlon, C.. 1970. Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, 11–53. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., and Moder, C. L.. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59.2, 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Slobin, D.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58.2, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprin, C., and Guasti, M. T.. 2009. The acquisition of morphosyntax in Italian: A cross-sectional study. Applied Psycholinguistics 30.1, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, E. 2008. Structures and Distributions in Morphology Learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6, 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H.; Aveledo, F., and Roca, I.. 2002. The development of regular and irregular verb inflection in Spanish child language. Journal of Child Language 29.3, 591–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., and Penke, M.. 1992. The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the simone corpus. In Meisel, J. (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement 181–234. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., and Rothweiler, M.. 1993. Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: Evidence from German participles. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 1–34.Google Scholar
Creutz, M., and Lagus, K.. 2005. Unsupervised Morpheme Segmentation and Morphology Induction from Text Corpora Using Morfessor 1.0. Technical report, Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2001. Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28.3, 545–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deen, K. U. 2005. The Acquisition of Swahili, Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K. 2003. The acquisition of Bantu languages. In Nurse, D. and Philippson, G. (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 209–22. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Eddington, D. 1996. Diphthongization in Spanish derivational morphology: An empirical investigation. Hispanic Linguistics 8.1, 1–13.Google Scholar
Ervin, S. M., and Miller, W. R.. 1963. Language development. Child Psychology 62.1, 108–43.Google Scholar
Gerken, L.; Wilson, R., and Lewis, W.. 2005. Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories. Journal of Child Language 32.2, 249–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, J. 2001. Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics 27.2, 153–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 2006. An algorithm for the unsupervised learning of morphology. Natural Language Engineering 12.4, 353–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, S.; Griffiths, T., and Johnson, M.. 2006. Interpolating between types and tokens by estimating power-law generators. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, 459–66.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., and Lakusta, L.. 2004. A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-month-old infants. Developmental Science 7.5, 567–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guasti, M. T. 1993. Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: Finite and nonfinite verbs. Language Acquisition 3.1, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gxilishe, S.; de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., Belikova, A., Meroni, L., and Umeda, M.. 2007. The acquisition of subject agreement in Xhosa. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., and Umeda, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALANA), Vol. 2, 114–23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hafer, M. A., and Weiss, S. F.. 1974. Word segmentation by letter successor varieties. Information Storage and Retrieval 10.11, 371–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, U., and Nakisa, R. C.. 2000. German inflection: Single route or dual route? Cognitive Psychology 41.4, 313–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4.1, 3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Mohanan, K. P.. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16.1, 57–116.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1955. From phoneme to morpheme. Language 31.2, 190–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, B., and Risley, T. R.. 2003. The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator 27.1, 4–9.Google Scholar
Hay, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9.7, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B.; Zuraw, K., Siptár, P., and Londe, Z.. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85.4, 822–63.Google Scholar
Herman, L., and Herman, M. S.. 2014. American Dialects: A Manual for Actors, Directors, and Writers. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarmulowicz, L. 2002. English derivational suffix frequency and children’s stress judgments. Brain and Language 81.1–3, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M.; Griffiths, T., and Goldwater, S.. 2007a. Bayesian inference for PCFGs via Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In Proceedings of NAACL HLT 2007, 139–46. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.; Griffiths, T. L., and Goldwater, S.. 2007b. Adaptor grammars: A framework for specifying compositional nonparametric bayesian models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, 641–48.Google Scholar
Keshava, S., and Pitler, E.. 2006. A simpler, intuitive approach to morpheme induction. In Proceedings of The 2nd Pascal Challenges Workshop, 31–5.Google Scholar
Kuçera, H., and Francis, W. N.. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1.1, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A., and Yang, C.. 2007. Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14.3, 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lignos, C.; Chan, E., Marcus, M. P., and Yang, C.. 2009. A rule-based unsupervised morphology learning framework. In Working Notes of the 10th Workshop of the Cross-language Evaluation Forum (CLEF2009). Available online at www.clef-initiative.eu/edition/clef2009/working-notes (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. 2000. More overregularizations after all: New data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen and Xu. Journal of Child Language 27.1, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G.; Pinker, S., Ullman, M. T., Hollander, M., Rosen, J., and Xu, F.. 1992. Over-Regularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46.1, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F.; Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., and Pinker, S.. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29.3, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, M. P.; Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., and Taylor, A.. 1999. Treebank-3. Linguistic Data Consortium: LDC99T42.Google Scholar
Maslen, R.; Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., and Tomasello, M.. 2004. A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47.6, 1319–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayol, L. 2007. Acquisition of irregular patterns in Spanish verbal morphology. In Nurmi, V. V. and Sustretov, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth ESSLLI Student Session, 185–96.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., and Patterson, K.. 2002. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 465–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monson, C. 2008. ParaMor: From Paradigm Structure to Natural Language Morphology Induction. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Mooney, R. J., and Califf, M. E.. 1995. Induction of first-order decision lists: Results on learning the past tense of English. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 3.1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J., and Stockall, L.. 2012. Early, equivalent ERP masked priming effects for regular and irregular morphology. Brain and language 123.2, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, S. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.4, 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naradowsky, J., and Goldwater, S.. 2009. Improving morphology induction by learning spelling rules. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1531–6. IJCAI Organization.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, T. 2011. Productivity and Reuse in Language. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Parkes, C.; Malek, A., and Marcus, M.. 1998. Towards unsupervised extraction of verb paradigms from large corpora. In Charniak, Eugene (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Very Large Corpora, 110–17. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. 1995. Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 325–82.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1995. Why the child holded the baby rabbit: A case study in language acquisition. In Gleitman, L. R. and Liberman, M. (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language, 107–33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., and Prince, A.. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28.1, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S., and Ullman, M. T.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science 6.11, 456–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizzuto, E., and Caselli, M. C.. 1994. The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other Children, Other Languages: Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition, 137–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., and Juola, P.. 1999. A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science 23.4, 463–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., and Smolensky, P.. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española 1992. Diccionario de la lengua española, 21st edn. Madrid: Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., and McClelland, J. L.. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations into the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models, 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. 2005. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 457–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sims, A. D. 2006. Minding the Gap: Inflectional Defectiveness in a Paradigmatic Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Spiegler, S.; Golénia, B., and Flach, P.. 2009. Promodes: A probabilistic generative model for word decomposition. In Working Notes of the 10th Workshop of the Cross-language Evaluation Forum (CLEF2009). Available online at www.clef-initiative.eu/edition/clef2009/working-notes (accessed May 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Stockall, L., and Marantz, A.. 2006. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1.1, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74.3, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Westfal, S. 1956. A Study in Polish Morphology: The Genitive Singular Masculine. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Weyerts, H., and Clahsen, H.. 1994. Netzwerke und symbolische Regeln im Spracher werb: Experimentelle Ergebnisse zur Entwicklung der Flexionsmorphologie. Linguistische Berichte 154, 430–60.Google Scholar
Wicentowski, R. 2002. Modeling and Learning Multilingual Inflectional Morphology in a Minimally Supervised Framework. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1999. On default rules and other rules. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6, 1043–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1999. German noun plural reconsidered. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 1044–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., and Pinker, S.. 1995. Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language 22.3, 531–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8.10, 451–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, C. 2005. On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5, 333–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. 2013. Ontogeny and phylogeny of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.16, 6324–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, K., and Sussman, G. J.. 1997. Sparse representations for fast, one-shot learning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 521–7. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., and Lai, Y.. 2010. Testing the role of phonetic knowledge in Mandarin tone sandhi. Phonology 27.1, 153–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×