Language learnability and language development

By Steven Pinker. 1985

How researchers see this paper

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

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Grounded Language Learning in a Simulated 3D World (2017, background): “…growth, the ability to learn from both rewarded interactions and predictions about the world, a natural tendency to generalise and re-use semantic knowledge, and improved outcomes when learning is moderated by curricula (Vosniadou and Brewer, 1992; Smith et al., 1996; Pinker, 1987, 2009).”
Cognitive Science in the era of Artificial Intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner (2016, neutral): “Similarly, semantic information in the form of visually perceived objects or scenes and afferent social signals may help lexical learning (D. K. Roy & Pentland, 2002) and help bootstrap syntactic learning (the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis, see Pinker, 1984).”
On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition (1988, background): “Competition among morphological alternatives is under the control of a principle of paradigm structure (called the 'Unique Entry Principle' in Pinker, 1984) which guarantees that in general each word will have one and only one form for each relevant morphological category; this is closely related…”
RECASTS AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT (2003, background): “…classified as implicit negative evidence (e.g., Bohannon et al., 1990; Long, in press, as cited in Long & Robinson, 1998), they also provide positive evidence, making it difficult to ascertain the source of any benefits they may provide (Grimshaw & Pinker, 1989; Long, 1996; Pinker, 1984, 1989).”
The faculty of language: what's special about it? (2005, unknown): “† the connection of the grammar to acquisition, especially how the child can identify the numerous abstract features and configurations that are specific to languages but have no perceptible correlate (see Culicover, 1999; Pinker, 1984, 1987).”
Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. (1996, background): “Further analyses of the network’s ability to reproduce data on impaired reading in surface dyslexia support a view of the reading system that incorporates a graded division-of-labor between semantic and phonological processes.”
The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning (2001, background): “These aspects of linguistic structure may not be obviously mirrored by the surface structure of the input and thus might not be discoverable by a statistical learning device (e.g., Pinker, 1984 ).”
Connectionist models of cognitive development: where next? (2005, background): “Here again, strong claims have been advanced that categories cannot be induced but must be innately given [ 40 ].”
Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Native-Speaker/Nonnative-Speaker Interactions (2002, background): “1989; Pinker, 1984; Wexler & Culicover, 1980) in which innate learning mechanisms are proposed that can account for Li acquisition based solely on positive evidence.”
Finding Structure in Time (1990, background): “Many theories of acquisition depend crucially on such primitive types as word, or morpheme, or more abstract categories as noun, verb, or phrase (e.g., Berwick & Weinberg, 1984; Pinker, 1984).”