Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 Nov;31(4):883-914.
doi: 10.1017/s0305000904006336.

A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition

Affiliations

A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition

Brian MacWhinney. J Child Lang. 2004 Nov.

Abstract

Many researchers believe that there is a logical problem at the centre of language acquisition theory. According to this analysis, the input to the learner is too inconsistent and incomplete to determine the acquisition of grammar. Moreover, when corrective feedback is provided, children tend to ignore it. As a result, language learning must rely on additional constraints from universal grammar. To solve this logical problem, theorists have proposed a series of constraints and parameterizations on the form of universal grammar. Plausible alternatives to these constraints include: conservatism, item-based learning, indirect negative evidence, competition, cue construction, and monitoring. Careful analysis of child language corpora has cast doubt on claims regarding the absence of positive exemplars. Using demonstrably available positive data, simple learning procedures can be formulated for each of the syntactic structures that have traditionally motivated invocation of the logical problem. Within the perspective of emergentist theory (MacWhinney, 2001), the operation of a set of mutually supportive processes is viewed as providing multiple buffering for developmental outcomes. However, the fact that some syntactic structures are more difficult to learn than others can be used to highlight areas of intense grammatical competition and processing load.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Baker CL. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry. 1979;10:533–81.
    1. Berwick R. Parsability and learnability. In: MacWhinney B, editor. Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987.
    1. Bowerman M. Commentary. In: MacWhinney B, editor. Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987.
    1. Bowerman M. The ‘no negative evidence’ problem. In: Hawkins J, editor. Explaining language universals. London: Blackwell; 1988.
    1. Brown R, Hanlon C. Hayes JR. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. New York: Wiley; 1970. Cognition and the development of language.

LinkOut - more resources