Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:25:53.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The great number crunch1

Review products

BodRens, HayJennifer & JannedyStefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Pp. xii+451.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2008

CHARLES YANG
CHARLES YANG*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics and Computer Science, 608 Williams Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 205 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I thank Bob Berwick, Abby Cohn, Julie Legate, my colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, and two anonymous JL referees for helpful comments and suggestions. I alone am responsible for the views expressed here.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven. 1996. Statistical methods and linguistics. In Phillip, Resnick & Judith, Klavins (eds.) The balancing act, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Abramowicz, Lukasz. 2006. Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). Presented at the 35th New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) Conference, Columbus, OH. [To appear in the proceedings.]Google Scholar
Anderson, John & Schooler, Lael. 1991. Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science 2, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angluin, Dana. 1988. Identifying languages from stochastic examples (Technical Report 614). New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
Arbib, Michael. 1969. Memory limitations of stimulus–response theory. Psychological Review 76, 507–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Susan, Gleitman, Lila & Gleitman, Henry. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batchelder, William H. & Kenneth, Wexler. 1979. Suppes' work in the foundations of psychology. In Radu, R. (ed.) Profiles – An international series on contemporary philosophers and logicians: Patrick Suppes, 149–186. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Robert & Mosteller, Frederick. 1951. A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review 68, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta & Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. & Wang, S.-Y. William. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955/1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University & MIT. [Published 1975. New York: Plenum; available http://alpha-leonis.lids.mit.edu/chomsky/ (19 September 2007).]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multi-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Brady. 2005. On stochastic grammar. Language 81, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Robin. 1992. The selection of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 2, 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coen, Michael. 2006. Multimodal dynamics: Self-supervised learning in perceptual and motor systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Cohn, Aabigail. 2006. Is there gradient phonology? In Gisbert, Fanselow, Caroline, Frey, Matthias, Schlesewsky & Ralf, Vogel (eds.) Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 25–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Michael. 1999. Review of Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language by Rens Bod. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 440–444.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Pietroski, Paul. 2002. Why language acquisition is a snap. Linguistic Review 19, 163–183.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2007. The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. Presented at the 31st Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Philadelphia, PA. [To appear in the proceedings.]Google Scholar
Dresher, Elan. 2003. On the acquisition of phonological contrasts. In Jacqueline van, Kampen & Sergio, Baauw (eds.) The generative approaches to language acquisition. Utrecht: 27–46.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alex. 2005. Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: Comments on the paper by Ullman et al. Brain and Language 93(2), 243–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, Kenneth. 1976. Accessing the mental lexicon. In Roger, Wales & Edward, Walker (eds.) New approaches to language mechanisms, 257–287. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth. 1992. Memory-addressing mechanisms and lexical access. In Ram, Frost & Leonard, Katz (eds.) Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning, 413–434. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbard, Ryan, Marcus, Mitch & Kulick, Seth. 2006. Fully parsing the Penn Treebank. The Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 184–191. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward & Perlmutter, J. Neal. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(7), 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, Mark. 1967. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10, 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Joshua. 1996. Efficient algorithms for parsing the DOP model. The Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 143–152.Google Scholar
Grey, Russell & Jordan, Fiona. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 6790, 1052–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, Maria T. 2002. Language development: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan. 1995. Frequency effects among homonyms. Texas Linguistic Forum 35, 103–116.Google Scholar
Gussennhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.). 2002. Laboratory phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1991. Explanationin variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregogy. 2005. Grammar and usage: A variationist response. Language 81, 561–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. The 2nd North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–8. Philadelphia, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2000. Causes and consequences of word structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Horning, James. 1969. A study of grammatical inference. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Frederick. 1998. Statistical methods for speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 2001. The DOP estimation method is biased and inconsistent. Computational Linguistics 28(1), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan & Girand, Cynthia. 2002. The role of lemma in form variation. In Gussenhoven, & Warner, (eds.) 3–34.Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Carpenter, A. Patricia. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 98, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanwisher, Nancy. 2000. Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience 3, 759–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kay, Paul & McDaniel, Chad. 1979. On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8, 151–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Michael & Valiant, Leslie. 1994. Cryptographic limitations on learning Boolean formulae and finite automata. Journal of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] 41, 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank & Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Probabilistic learning algorithms and Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In John, Goldsmith (ed.) Handbook of phonological theory, 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kornai, Andras. 1998. Analytic models in phonology. In Jacques, Durand & Bernard, Laks (eds.) The organization of phonology: Constraints, levels, and representations, 395–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45, 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language 57, 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of language change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2006. A sociolinguistic perspective on sociophonetic research. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 500–515.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, Shalom & Shieber, M. Stuart. 2007. Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into universal grammar. Journal of Linguistics 43(2), 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On certain substitutes for negative data. In Robert, Matthews & William, Demopoulos (eds.) Learnability and linguistic theory, 89–105. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa. 2002. Some influences on the realization of for and four in American English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie A. & Yang, Charles. 2005. The richness of the poverty of the stimulus. Presented at the Golden Anniversary of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, 16 July 2005. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie A. & Yang, Charles. 2007. Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1995. The CHILDES project. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet & Gerken, LouAnn. 2002. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82(3), B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, April & McMahon, Robert. 1995. Linguistics, genetics and archaeology: Internal and external evidence in the Amerind controversy. Transactions of the Philological Society 93, 125–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehler, Jacques, Peña, Marcela, Nespor, Marina & Bonatti, Luca. 2006. The ‘soul’ of language does not use statistics: Reflections on vowels and consonants. Cortex 42, 846–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Wayne & Forster, Kenneth. 2004. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The rank hypothesis. Psychological Review 111, 721–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, Partha. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Martin, Komarova, Natalia & Niyogi, Partha. 2002. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature 417, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parducci, Allen & Perrett, F. Linda. 1971. Category rating scales: Effects of relative frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89(2), 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Gordon & Barney, Harold. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60, 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure. In Patricia, Keating (ed.) Papers in laboratory phonology 3, 168–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, & Warner, (eds.) 101–139.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition 7, 217–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pitt, Leonard. 1989. Probabilistic inductive inference. Journal of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] 36, 383–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2001. Variability, frequency and productivity in the irrealis domain of French. In Joan, Bybee & Paul, Hopper (eds.) Frequency effects and emergent grammar, 405–428. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald, Warnow, Tandy & Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1), 59–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Jorma. 1989. Stochastic complexity in statistical inquiry. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2005. Grammatically based target inconsistencies in child language. In Kamil, Ud Deen, Jun, Nomujra, Barbara, Schultz & Bonnie, Schwartz (eds.) The Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (GALANA) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), 19–49. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Roberts, Julie. 1996. Acquisition of variable rules: A study of (-t, -d) deletion in preschool children. Journal of Child Language 24, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Tom. 2000. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny, Newport, Elissa & Aslin, Richard. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988. Variable rules. In Ulrich, Ammon, Norbert, Dittmar & Klaus, Mattheier (eds.) Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, 984–997. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David & Labov, William. 1979. On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8, 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2005. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In Stephan, Kepser & Marga, Reis (eds.) Linguistic evidence: Theoretical, empirical, and computational perspectives, 457–485. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockall, Linnaea & Marantz, Alec. 2006. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1969. Stimulus–response theory of finite automata. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6, 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1970. Probabilistic grammars for natural languages. Synthese 22, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarr, Michael J. & Cheng, D. Yi. 2003. Learning to see faces and objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, Michael, Pancheva, Roumyana, Love, Tracy, Yee, Eiling, Swinney, David & Hickok, Gregory. 2005. Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language 93(2), 185–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valiant, Leslie G. 1984. A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] 27, 1134–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vapnik, Vapnik. 1995. The nature of statistical learning theory. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan & Lewis, Richard. 2006. Argument–head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language 82, 767–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivation in child language. In David, Lightfoot & Norbert, Hornstein (eds.) Verb movement, 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Fei & Pinker, Steven. 1995. Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language 22, 531–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics, or both. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(10), 451–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Charles. 2005. On productivity. Yearbook of Language Variation 5, 333–370.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2006. The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn languages of the world. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. To appear. Counting grammars. In Insa, Guzlow & Natalia, Gagarina (eds.) Frequency effects in language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, K. Geoffrey. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. The Thirteenth Annual Meeting, General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 330–340. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar