Becoming syntactic.

By Franklin Chang, Gary S. Dell, Kathryn Bock. Psychology Review, 2006

932 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f8d32f6503370e75f5579fdb11e984b374cd4266

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Weighted Constraints in Generative Linguistics (2009, background): “11 Error-driven learning of this type is of course broadly used in psycholinguistic modeling, and has recently been claimed to be crucial to an account of the learning of syntactic generalization (Chang et al. 2006).”
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? (2015, background): “…hierarchical actively generative architecture that we have sketched out here can bridge our understanding of the relationships between language processing, adaptation, and learning (e.g. Brown-Schmidt et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2006; Dell & Chang, 2014; Jaeger & Snider, 2013).”
Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension (2013, background): “But despite work on adaptation across linguistic domains, and explicit suggestions by some language researchers that lifelong learning (adaptation) is a general property of the systems underlying language processing [23,24,46,48,72,124], researchers across linguistic domains have often explored thes”
How language production shapes language form and comprehension (2012, background): “From the PDC perspective, this distinction between acquisition and use is a false one, because learning in production (and comprehension) never stops; there is not first a phase of acquisition and later one of use (Seidenberg, 1997; Chang et al., 2006)4.”
Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation (2017, background): “Since the early 1990s, when interest in neural approaches waned in the nlp and ai communities, cognitive science research has continued to explore their application to syntax and language production (e.g., Elman, 1990, 1993; Chang et al., 2006).”
Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension (2008, methodology): “With adult scoring, which excludes incorrectly repeated trials and non-transitives, the magnitude of passive priming is much larger (42%–9%, or 33 percentage points) than that found in adult studies (between 5 and 10 percentage points, depending on the study, Chang et al., 2006).”
Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech (2013, background): “…of abstraction based on the structure and semantics of prior discourse (Altmann & Mirković 2009, Altmann & Steedman 1988, Balling & Baayen 2012, Chang et al. 2006, Kutas & Federmeier 2007, Levy 2008, MacDonald et al. 1994, MacDonald & Seidenberg 2006, Otten & Van Berkum 2008, Ramscar, Mat-lock,…”
Planning in sentence production: evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. (2010, neutral): “However, the recent Chang et al. (2006) model is a word-by-word production model which uses past learning of legal syntactic sequences to ensure grammatical production.”
Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English (2009, methodology): “More detail about this message representation can be found in the ‘‘Appendix” as well as in Chang (2002) and Chang et al. (2006).”
When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task (2015, methodology): “…these models to keep newly learned knowledge from overwriting older knowledge (catastrophic interference; McClelland, McNaughton, & O’Reilly, 1995); Chang et al. (2006) instantiated this reduc- 4 A faster learning rate implemented in a Hebbian mechanism would tion in plasticity by reducing a…”
Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition (2016, background): “Across different frameworks, prediction has been argued to be a central component of language acquisition (e.g. Chang et al., 2006; Clark, 2013; Dell and Chang, 2014; MacDonald, 2013; Phillips and Ehrenhofer, 2015; Pickering and Garrod, 2013).”
Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of give in New Zealand and American English (2008, methodology): “…of probabilistic grammars to use and context is explained by statistical learning algorithms or by deriving their properties from models of language perception and production (Boersma and Hayes 2001, Boersma 2004, Ferreira 1996, Goldwater and Johnson 2003, Jäger in press, Chang et al. 2006).”
Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English (2010, methodology): “…used a corrected version of the database created by Gabriel Recchia in 2006 by correlating the Bresnan et al. dataset with the timealigned Switchboard corpus produced by the Mississippi State University Institute for Signal and Information Processing resegmentation project (Deshmukh et al. 1998).”