Negative evidence in language acquisition

  title={Negative evidence in language acquisition},
  author={Gary F. Marcus},
  • G. Marcus
  • Published 31 January 1993
  • Linguistics
  • Cognition

Figures and Tables from this paper

Negative Evidence on Negative Evidence.

In the course of development, children may at times adopt grammars that appear to be overgeneral with respect to the language they are acquiring. For example, children learning English may alternate

Language Learning From Positive Evidence, Reconsidered: A Simplicity-Based Approach

This study reviews recent formal results showing that the learner has sufficient data to learn successfully from positive evidence, if it favors the simplest encoding of the linguistic input.

Negative evidence and negative feedback: immediate effects on the grammaticality of child speech

Until recently, a long-standing assumption in the field of child language acquisition research was that parents do not correct the grammatical errors of their children. While consensus now exists

An ANN model of anaphora: implications for nativism

It is widely believed that acquisition of language involves the formation of successive hypotheses about the adult grammar, and the testing and modification of them with reference to the data. If a

The Contrast Theory of negative input

  • M. Saxton
  • Psychology
    Journal of Child Language
  • 1997
Within the Contrast Theory of negative input, an alternative definition of negative evidence is offered, based on the idea that the unique discourse structure created in the juxtaposition of child error and adult correct form can reveal to the child the contrast, or conflict, between the two forms, and hence provide a basis for rejecting the erroneous form.

Differential Use of Implicit Negative Evidence in Generative and Discriminative Language Learning

It is shown that these two learning approaches differ in their use of implicit negative evidence – the absence of a sentence – when learning verb alternations, and that human learners can produce results consistent with the predictions of both approaches, depending on how the learning problem is presented.

Negative Evidence on Negative Evidence

Previous work has shown that recasts may be contingent responses to children's early ungrammatically. On this basis, it has been claimed that recasts provide negative evidence, thereby offsetting the

Sampling Assumptions Affect Use of Indirect Negative Evidence in Language Learning

It is demonstrated in a series of artificial language learning experiments that adults can produce behavior consistent with both sets of sampling assumptions, depending on how the learning problem is presented, and suggests that people use information about the way in which linguistic input is sampled to guide their learning.

The Acquisition of the English Causative Alternation

Languages are riddled with partial regularities—patterns that are productive, but not completely so. Such patterns create a challenge for theories of language acquisition: how can children discover



Limits on negative information in language input

Examining parental responses to inflectional over-regularizations and wh-question auxiliary-verb omission errors in the sets of transcripts from Adam, Eve and Sarah found that negative feedback may occasionally be available, but the contention that language input generally incorporates negative information appears to be unfounded.

The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors.

This study was designed to assess one of the major assumptions of current language learning theories: Adults ignore children's speech errors. We observed both parents (n = 16) and nonparent adults (n

Structure dependence in grammar formation

Action NP's 26 24 2 Expletive NP's 41 36 5 Controls 41 38 3 TABLE 7. Frequency of correct and incorrect responses by sentence type. Returning to the results of the pretest, the first observation is

Positive evidence for negative evidence

The topic of 'negative evidence', i.e., of linguistic corrections, is focused upon. Its denial in the recent literature is briefly documented and various dimensions of this denial are specified.

Feedback to first language learners: the role of repetitions and clarification questions

Research was expanded by broadening the definition of ‘negative feedback’ and by describing individual styles of mother–child dialogues to investigate whether mothers of four 2-year-old children responded differentially to their children's well-formed or ill-formed utterances with explicit and implicit feedback.

The child's trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability

Abstract According to a “selective” (as opposed to “instructive”) model of human language capacity, people come to know more than they experience. The discrepancy between experience and eventual

Overregularization in language acquisition.

The traditional account in which memory operates before rules cannot be replaced by a connectionist alternative in which a single network displays rotelike or rulelike behavior in response to changes in input statistics, and a simple explanation is proposed.

Brown & Hanlon revisited: mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms

Focusing on repetitions, it is found that mothers are more inclined to repeat ungrammatical than grammatical sentences generated by 2- year-old subjects, indicating that the language learning environment does present subtle cues that distinguish between well-formed and ill-formed sentences.

No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom.

Gordon (1990), in his commentary on Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988), argued that (a) the originalGold (1967) learnability proof bears little relevance for innateness of language, (b) the Bohannonand

Learnability and Feedback

Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988) have claimed that contrary to popular belief, children do receive negative evidence about the ungrammaticality of their utterances in the form of recasts, expansions,