Poverty of the Stimulus? A Rational Approach-猫眼课题宝

刺激贫困？

DOI：

发表时间：

2006

期刊：

影响因子：

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

文献类型：

作者：

A. Perfors;J. Tenenbaum;T. Regier

经济刺激计划的贫困？A Rational Approach艾米·佩福斯1（perfors@mit.edu），约书亚B. Tenenbaum 1（jbt@mit.edu）和Terry Regier 2（regier@uchicago.edu）麻省理工学院脑与认知科学系;芝加哥大学心理学系抽象复合体，因为它作用于句子的短语结构，而不仅仅是其元素序列。这种形式的PoS论证的“贫困”部分声称，儿童没有看到他们需要的数据，以排除结构独立（线性）假设。这种数据的一个例子是一个疑问句，如“Is the man who is hungry ordering dinner？"。在这句话中，主句的附属句是前置的，尽管存在另一个附属句，在相应的陈述句中会排在第一位。乔姆斯基认为，这种类型的数据在儿童语言中是不可访问的，他坚持认为，“一个人很可能一生都没有听到任何相关的例子，可以在两个原则之间做出选择”（乔姆斯基，1971）。人们普遍认为，儿童似乎并没有经历一个考虑线性假设的时期（Crain和Nakayama，1987）。然而，PoS论点的另外两个方面是争论不休的话题。第一种考虑输入中有什么证据，什么构成“足够”（Pullum和Scholz，2002年; Legate和Yang，2002年）。不幸的是，这种方法是不确定的：虽然有一些人同意，批评形式是罕见的儿童为导向的讲话，他们确实发生（Legate和杨，2002年; Pullum和Scholz，2002年）。由于缺乏对儿童语言学习机制如何运作的明确规范，很难确定这种输入是否足够。第二个问题涉及刺激的性质，表明无论是否有足够的直接句法证据可用，语言中可能有足够的分布和统计解释来解释儿童的行为（Redington等人，1998年;刘易斯和埃尔曼，2001年; Reali和克里斯蒂安森，2004年）。大多数专门关注辅助前置的研究使用联结主义模拟或n-gram模型来论证儿童导向语言包含足够的信息来预测辅助前置疑问句的语法状态（Reali and Christiansen，2004;刘易斯and Elman，2001）。虽然这两种方法都是有用的，特别是统计学习的研究是有希望的，但仍然存在明显的缺点。首先，统计模型不涉及PoS论证提出的主要直觉和问题。直觉是，语言有一个层次结构-它使用符号概念，如句法类别和短语。刺激贫困（PoS）论点认为，儿童没有得到足够的证据来推断语言核心方面的存在，例如语言规则对层次短语结构的依赖。我们重新评估这个论点的一个版本与贝叶斯模型的语法归纳，并表明，一个理性的学习者没有任何初始的语言特定的偏见可以学习这种依赖典型的儿童导向的输入。这种选择使学习者能够掌握syn- tax的各个方面，例如疑问句形成中的辅助前置规则，即使没有听到直接相关的数据（例如，在主语NP中的关系从句中含有助动词的疑问句）。乔姆斯基的观察对现代语言学产生了很大的影响，乔姆斯基观察到语言学习者做出的语法概括似乎并不被输入中的存在所证明（乔姆斯基，1965年，1980年）。认为这些概括最好由先天知识来解释的观点，被称为刺激的贫困（Poverty of the Stimulus，以下简称PoS），引发了一场持久的辩论，这场辩论是认知科学和语言学中许多关键问题的核心。“刺激贫乏论”的最初表述主要基于关于简单性的假设，儿童所接触的输入的性质，以及有多少证据足以支持儿童所做的概括。疑问句中的辅助前置现象是PoS论证的一个例子;在这里，该论证指出，儿童必须天生偏向于使用语法结构（如短语和从句）的结构依赖规则，而不是只对单词序列起作用的结构独立规则。英语疑问句是由陈述句加在主句助词前面构成的。给定一个陈述句，如“角落里的狗饿了”，疑问句是通过移动“is”使句子“角落里的狗饿了吗？”乔姆斯基考虑了两种类型的操作，可以解释辅助前置（乔姆斯基，1965年，1971年）。最简单的（线性）规则独立于句子的层次短语结构：取句子中最左边（第一次）出现的助动词，并将其移到开头。结构依赖（层次）规则-将助动词从句子的主句中移走-更

Poverty of the Stimulus? A Rational Approach Amy Perfors 1 (perfors@mit.edu), Joshua B. Tenenbaum 1 (jbt@mit.edu) , and Terry Regier 2 (regier@uchicago.edu) Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT; 2 Department of Psychology, University of Chicago Abstract complex since it operates over a sentence’s phrasal struc- ture and not just its sequence of elements. The “poverty” part of this form of the PoS argument claims that children do not see the data they would need to in order to rule out the structure-independent (linear) hypothesis. An example of such data would be an in- terrogative sentence such as “Is the man who is hungry ordering dinner?”. In this sentence, the main clause aux- iliary is fronted in spite of the existence of another aux- iliary that would come first in the corresponding declar- ative sentence. Chomsky argued that this type of data is not accessible in child speech, maintaining that “it is quite possible for a person to go through life without having heard any of the relevant examples that would choose between the two principles” (Chomsky, 1971). It is mostly accepted that children do not appear to go through a period where they consider the linear hy- pothesis (Crain and Nakayama, 1987). However, two other aspects of the PoS argument are the topic of much debate. The first considers what evidence there is in the input and what constitutes “enough” (Pullum and Scholz, 2002; Legate and Yang, 2002). Unfortunately, this approach is inconclusive: while there is some agree- ment that the critical forms are rare in child-directed speech, they do occur (Legate and Yang, 2002; Pullum and Scholz, 2002). Lacking a clear specification of how a child’s language learning mechanism might work, it is difficult to determine whether that input is sufficient. The second issue concerns the nature of the stimulus, suggesting that regardless of whether there is enough direct syntactic evidence available, there may be suf- ficient distributional and statistical regularities in lan- guage to explain children’s behavior (Redington et al., 1998; Lewis and Elman, 2001; Reali and Christiansen, 2004). Most of the work focusing specifically on aux- iliary fronting uses connectionist simulations or n-gram models to argue that child-directed language contains enough information to predict the grammatical status of aux-fronted interrogatives (Reali and Christiansen, 2004; Lewis and Elman, 2001). While both of these approaches are useful and the re- search on statistical learning in particular is promising, there are still notable shortcomings. First of all, the sta- tistical models do not engage with the primary intuition and issue raised by the PoS argument. The intuition is that language has a hierarchical structure – it uses symbolic notions like syntactic categories and phrases The Poverty of the Stimulus (PoS) argument holds that children do not receive enough evidence to infer the exis- tence of core aspects of language, such as the dependence of linguistic rules on hierarchical phrase structure. We reevaluate one version of this argument with a Bayesian model of grammar induction, and show that a rational learner without any initial language-specific biases could learn this dependency given typical child-directed input. This choice enables the learner to master aspects of syn- tax, such as the auxiliary fronting rule in interrogative formation, even without having heard directly relevant data (e.g., interrogatives containing an auxiliary in a relative clause in the subject NP). Introduction Modern linguistics was strongly influenced by Chomsky’s observation that language learners make grammatical generalizations that do not appear justified by the ev- idence in the input (Chomsky, 1965, 1980). The no- tion that these generalizations can best be explained by innate knowledge, known as the argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus (henceforth PoS), has led to an enduring debate that is central to many of the key issues in cognitive science and linguistics. The original formulation of the Poverty of Stimulus ar- gument rests critically on assumptions about simplicity, the nature of the input children are exposed to, and how much evidence is sufficient to support the generaliza- tions that children make. The phenomenon of auxiliary fronting in interrogative sentences is one example of the PoS argument; here, the argument states that children must be innately biased to favor structure-dependent rules that operate using grammatical constructs like phrases and clauses over structure-independent rules that operate only on the sequence of words. English interrogatives are formed from declaratives by fronting the main clause auxiliary. Given a declarative sentence like “The dog in the corner is hungry”, the in- terrogative is formed by moving the is to make the sen- tence “Is the dog in the corner hungry?” Chomsky con- sidered two types of operation that can explain auxiliary fronting (Chomsky, 1965, 1971). The simplest (linear) rule is independent of the hierarchical phrase structure of the sentence: take the leftmost (first) occurrence of the auxiliary in the sentence and move it to the beginning. The structure-dependent (hierarchical) rule – move the auxiliary from the main clause of the sentence – is more

Poverty of the Stimulus? A Rational Approach

刺激贫困？

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献