Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Computational evaluation of the Traceback Method

  • SHELI KOL (a1), BRACHA NIR (a2) and SHULY WINTNER (a1)

Abstract

Several models of language acquisition have emerged in recent years that rely on computational algorithms for simulation and evaluation. Computational models are formal and precise, and can thus provide mathematically well-motivated insights into the process of language acquisition. Such models are amenable to robust computational evaluation, using technology that was developed for Information Retrieval and Computational Linguistics. In this article we advocate the use of such technology for the evaluation of formal models of language acquisition. We focus on the Traceback Method, proposed in several recent studies as a model of early language acquisition, explaining some of the phenomena associated with children's ability to generalize previously heard utterances and generate novel ones. We present a rigorous computational evaluation that reveals some flaws in the method, and suggest directions for improving it.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Computational evaluation of the Traceback Method
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Computational evaluation of the Traceback Method
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Computational evaluation of the Traceback Method
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence . The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.

References

Hide All
Alishahi, A. (2010). Computational modeling of human language acquisition. San Fransisco: Morgan & Claypool.
Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science 32(5), 789834.
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bannard, C. & Lieven, E. (2009). Repetition and reuse in child language learning. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E., Ouali, H. & Wheatley, K. (eds.), Formulaic language, 297321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bannard, C., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Early grammatical development is piecemeal and lexically specific. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106(41), 17284–89.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berant, J., Gross, Y., Mussel, M., Sandbank, B. & Edelman, S. (2007). Boosting unsupervised grammar induction by splitting complex sentences on function words. In Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development, 93104. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Blevins, J. P. & Blevins, J. (2009). Introduction: analogy in grammar. In Blevins, J. P. & Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in grammar: form and acquisition, 112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bod, R. (2009a). Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 129–34.
Bod, R. (2009b). From exemplar to grammar: a probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33(5), 752–93.
Borensztajn, G., Zuidema, W. & Bod, R. (2009). Children's grammars grow more abstract with age — evidence from an automatic procedure for identifying the productive units of language. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, 175–88.
Brodsky, P., Waterfall, H. & Edelman, S. (2007). Characterizing motherese: on the computational structure of child-directed language. In Proceedings of the 29th Cognitive Science Society Conference. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5), 425–55.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4), 711–33.
Chang, F. & Fitz, H. (forthcoming). Computational models of sentence production: a dual-path approach. In Ferreira, V., Goldrick, M. & Miozzo, M. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, F., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Automatic evaluation of syntactic learners in typologically-different languages. Cognitive Systems Research 9(3), 198213.
Chang, N. (2008). Constructing grammar: a computational model of the emergence of early constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Computer Science Division, University of California at Berkeley.
Chater, N. & Manning, C. D. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7), 335–44.
Chater, N. & Redington, M. (1999). Connectionism, theories of learning, and syntax acquisition: where do we stand? Journal of Child Language 26(1), 217–60.
Christiansen, M. H. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning 59, 126–61.
Da̧browska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: the acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2), 83102.
Da̧browska, E. & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3), 437–74.
Demuth, K. (2008). Exploiting corpora for language acquisition research. In Behrens, H. (ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: history, methods, perspectives, 199205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2006). Modelling the development of children's use of Optional Infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 30, 277310.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2007). Understanding the developmental dynamics of subject omission: the role of processing limitations in learning. Journal of Child Language 34(1), 83110.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2009). Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German, and English root infinitives in MOSAIC. Language Learning and Development 5, 129.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 37(3), 643–69.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. (2009). Constructions work. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 201224.
Lewis, J. B. & Elman, J. L. (2001). A connectionist investigation of linguistic arguments from poverty of the stimulus: learning the unlearnable. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 552–57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30(2), 333–70.
Lieven, E., Pine, J. M. & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24(1), 187219.
Lieven, E., Salomo, D. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: a usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3), 481507.
MacWhinney, B. (1975). Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children. Journal of Child Language 2, 6577.
MacWhinney, B. (ed.) (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mulder, J., Thompson, S. A. & Williams, C. P. (2009). Final but in Australian English conversation. In Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter & Smith, Adam (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: grammar and beyond, 337–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Parisien, C., Fazly, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). An incremental Bayesian model for learning syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 8996. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reali, F., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2003). Phonological and distributional cues in syntax acquisition: scaling up the connectionist approach to multiple-cue integration. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 970–75. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
Redington, M., Crater, N. & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: a powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science 22(4), 425–69.
Rowland, C. F., Fletcher, S. L. & Freudenthal, D. (2008). How big is big enough? Assessing the reliability of data from naturalistic samples. In Behrens, H. (ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: history, methods, perspectives, Vol. 6, 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sagae, K., Davis, E., Lavie, A., MacWhinney, B. & Wintner, S. (2010). Morphosyntactic annotation of CHILDES transcripts. Journal of Child Language 37(3), 705729.
Solan, Z., Horn, D., Ruppin, E. & Edelman, S. (2005). Unsupervised learning of natural languages. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(33), 11629–34.
Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist 29, 103114.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 255–98. New York: Wiley.
Vogt, P. & Lieven, E. (2010). Verifying theories of language acquisition using computer models of language evolution. Adaptive Behavior 18(1), 2135.
Zaanen, M. van & Geertzen, J. (2008). Problems with evaluation of unsupervised empirical grammatical inference systems. In ICGI '08: Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference, 301303. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed