Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T20:40:30.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing solutions to the linking problem using an integrated quantitative framework of language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Lisa S. Pearl  and
Jon Sprouse
Lisa S. Pearl*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Jon Sprouse*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, Storrs
*
lpearl@uci.edu
jon.sprouse@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To successfully learn language—and more specifically how to use verbs correctly—children must solve the linking problem: they must learn the mapping between the thematic roles specified by a verb's lexical semantics and the syntactic argument positions specified by a verb's syntactic frame. We use an empirically grounded and integrated quantitative framework involving corpus analysis, experimental meta-analysis, and computational modeling to implement minimally distinct versions of mapping approaches that (i) either are specified a priori or develop during language acquisition, and (ii) rely on either an absolute or a relative thematic role system. Using successful verb class learning as an evaluation metric, we embed each approach within a concrete model of the acquisition process and see which learning assumptions are able to match children's verb-learning behavior at three, four, and five years old. Our current results support a trajectory where children (i) may not have prior expectations about linking patterns between ages three and five, and (ii) begin with a relative thematic system, progressing toward optionality between a relative and an absolute system. We discuss implications of our results for both theories of syntactic representation and theories of how those representations are acquired. We also discuss the broader contribution of this study as a concrete modeling framework that can be updated with new linking theories, corpora, and experimental results.

Keywords

computational modelingderived mappinginnate mappinglinking problemUTAHrUTAHverb classes

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 583 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 73–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, Libby, Fazly, Afsaneh; and Stevenson, Suzanne. 2014a. Gradual acquisition of mental state meaning: A computational investigation. Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2014), 1886–69. Online: https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/papers/331/.Google Scholar
Barak, Libby, Fazly, Afsaneh; and Stevenson, Suzanne. 2014b. Learning verb classes in an incremental model. Proceedings of the fifth workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), 37–45. DOI: 10.3115/v1/W14-2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Misha. 2009. The role of NP animacy and expletives in verb learning. Language Acquisition 16(4). 283–96. DOI: 10.1080/10489220903178997.10.1080/10489220903178997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Misha. 2014. The acquisition of syntactic structure: Animacy and thematic alignment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Misha. 2015. Animacy and the acquisition of tough adjectives. Language Acquisition 22(1). 68–103. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2014.928298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Misha, and Estigarribia, Bruno. 2013. Harder words: Learning abstract verbs with opaque syntax. Language Learning and Development 9(3). 211–44. DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2013.753798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1988. The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy, and Goldberg, Adele. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 87(1). 55–83. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2011.0012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S., and Brooks, Patricia J.. 1995. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, ed. by Tomasello, Michael and Merriman, William E., 353–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674732469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunger, Ann, and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2004. Syntactic bootstrapping and the internal structure of causative events. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 28. 74–85.Google Scholar
Bunger, Ann, and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2008. Thematic relations as a cue to verb class: 2-year-olds distinguish unaccusatives from unergatives. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 31st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 14(1):4. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol14/iss1/4/.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conwell, Erin, and Demuth, Katherine. 2007. Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition 103(2). 163–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI: 10.2307/415037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazly, Afsaneh, Alishahi, Afra; and Stevenson, Suzanne. 2010. A probabilistic computational model of cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Science 34(6). 1017–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01104.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Fisher, Cynthia, Gertner, Yael, Scott, Rose M.; and Yuan, Sylvia. 2010. Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(2). 143–49. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.17.Google ScholarPubMed
Gelman, Susan A., and Koenig, Melissa A.. 2001. The role of animacy in children's understanding of ‘move’. Journal of Child Language 28(3). 683–701. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000901004810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gertner, Yael, Fisher, Cynthia; and Eisengart, Julie. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17(8). 684–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01767.x.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01767.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillette, Jane, Gleitman, Henry, Gleitman, Lila; and Lederer, Anne. 1999. Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73(2). 135–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00036-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, Lila. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1(1). 3–55. DOI: 10.1207/s15327817la0101_2.10.1207/s15327817la0101_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28(4). 435–65. DOI: 10.1111/mila.12026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 2003. The origin of argument structure in infant event representations. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 28. 189–98.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard; and Wilson, Ronald. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65(2). 203–57. DOI: 10.2307/415332.10.2307/415332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutman, Ariel, Dautriche, Isabelle, Crabbé;, Benoît and Christophe, Anne. 2015. Bootstrapping the syntactic bootstrapper: Probabilistic labeling of prosodic phrases. Language Acquisition 22(3). 285–309. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2014.971956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, J. Kiley, Wynn, Karen; and Bloom, Paul. 2007. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450(7169). 557–59. DOI: 10.1038/nature06288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. Kiley, Wynn, Karen, Bloom, Paul; and Mahajan, Neha. 2011. How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(50). 19931–36. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1110306108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrigan, Kaitlyn, Hacquard, Valentine; and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2016. Syntactic bootstrapping in the acquisition of attitude verbs: Think, want and hope. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 33. 196–206. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/33/paper3239.pdf.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Joshua K., Pogue, Amanda; and Snedeker, Jesse. 2015. Love is hard to understand: The relationship between transitivity and caused events in the acquisition of emotion verbs. Journal of Child Language 42(3). 467–504. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000914000178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina; and Shimpi, Priya. 2004. Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50(2). 182–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3). 369–411. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178548.Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar. 2016. Form and meaning in the Hebrew verb. New York: New York University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena V. M.; and Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements. Cognitive Development 21(2). 93–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.006.10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena V. M.; and Tomasello, Michael. 2010. Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences 32(1). 132–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002.10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, Susannah. 2009. Do what you know: ‘Semantic scaffolding’ in biclausal raising and control. Berkeley Linguistics Society 35(1). 190–201. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v35i1.3610.Google Scholar
Kirby, Susannah. 2010. Semantic scaffolding in L1A syntax: Learning raising-to-object and object control. Proceedings of the 2009 Mind-Context Divide Workshop, 52–59. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/mcd/2009/paper2345.pdf.Google Scholar
Landau, Barbara, and Gleitman, Lila R.. 1985. Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–91. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 589–632. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178697.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne, and Yang, Charles. 2013. Assessing child and adult grammar. Rich languages from poor inputs, ed. by Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo and Berwick, Robert C., 168–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590339.003.0011.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 26.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey, and Gagliardi, Annie. 2015. How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1). 333–52. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125236.10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, Letitia. 1990. Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17(2). 357–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000900013817.10.1017/S0305000900013817CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, Letitia, and Kako, Edward. 1993. First contact in verb acquisition: Defining a role for syntax. Child Development 64(6). 1665–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04206.x.10.2307/1131462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omaki, Akira, and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 22(2). 158–92. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2014.943903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Cassidy, Kimberly; and Gleitman, Lila. 2007. When we think about thinking: The acquisition of belief verbs. Cognition 105(1). 125–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, Lisa. 2014. Evaluating learning-strategy components: Being fair (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven). Language 90(3). e107–e114. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa. 2017. Evaluation, use, and refinement of knowledge representations through acquisition modeling. Language Acquisition 24(2). 126–47. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2016.1192633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa. 2020. Modeling syntactic acquisition. The Oxford handbook of experimental syntax, ed. by Sprouse, Jon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, Ho, Timothy; and Detrano, Zephyr. 2016. An argument from acquisition: Comparing English metrical stress representations by how learnable they are from child-directed speech. Language Acquisition 24(4). 307–42. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2016.1194422.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, and Phillips, Lawrence. 2018. Evaluating language acquisition models: A utility-based look at Bayesian segmentation. Language, cognition, and computational models, ed. by Poibeau, Thierry and Villavicencio, Aline, 185–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316676974.008.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, and Sprouse, Jon. 2013a. Computational models of acquisition for islands. Experimental syntax and island effects, ed. by Sprouse, Jon and Hornstein, Norbert, 109–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139035309.006.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, and Sprouse, Jon. 2013b. Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Language Acquisition 20(1). 23–68. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2012.738742.10.1080/10489223.2012.738742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, and Sprouse, Jon. 2015. Computational modeling for language acquisition: A tutorial with syntactic islands. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 58(3). 740–53. DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–90. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M.. 1984. Impersonal passives and some relational laws. Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. by Perlmutter, David M. and Rosen, Carol G., 126–70. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Lawrence, and Pearl, Lisa. 2015. The utility of cognitive plausibility in language acquisition modeling: Evidence from word segmentation. Cognitive Science 39(8). 1824–45. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12217.10.1111/cogs.12217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Rand, William M. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 66(336). 846–50. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1971.10482356.10.1080/01621459.1971.10482356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, Kathryn, Yang, Charles; and Newport, Elissa. 2016. Testing the tolerance principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2016), 2321–12. Online: https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/papers/0402/paper0402.pdf.Google Scholar
Scott, Rose M., and Fisher, Cynthia. 2009. Two-year-olds use distributional cues to interpret transitivity-alternating verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(6). 777–803. DOI: 10.1080/01690960802573236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–90. DOI: 10.2307/417202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 21.) Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thothathiri, Malathi, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2008. Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2). 188–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.012.10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40(1–2). 21–81. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7.10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2005. On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2005. 265–302. DOI: 10.1075/livy.5.09yan.10.1075/livy.5.09yanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles, and Montrul, Silvina. 2017. Learning datives: The tolerance principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research 33(1). 119–44. DOI: 10.1177/0267658316673686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Sylvia, and Fisher, Cynthia. 2009. ‘Really? She blicked the baby?‘: Two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science 20(5). 619–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02341.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Pearl and Sprouse supplementary material

Pearl and Sprouse supplementary material
Download Pearl and Sprouse supplementary material(File)
File 367.6 KB