In:Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 197–220
Chapter 9The labeling problem in syntactic bootstrapping
Main clause syntax in the acquisition of propositional attitude verbs
Published online: 2 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.09whi
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.09whi
Abstract
In English, the distinction between belief verbs, such as think, and desire verbs, such as want, is tracked by tense found in the subordinate clauses of those verbs. This suggests that subordinate clause tense might be a useful cue for learning the meanings of these verbs via syntactic bootstrapping. However, the correlation between tense and the belief v. desire distinction is not cross-linguistically robust; yet the acquisition profile of these verbs is similar cross-linguistically. Our proposal in this chapter is that, instead of using concrete cues like subordinate clause tense, learners may utilize more abstract syntactic cues that must be tuned to the syntactic distinctions present in a particular language. We present computational modeling evidence supporting the viability of this proposal.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Approaches to the labeling problem
- 3.Our proposal
- 4.Implementing our proposal
-
4.1Base model
- 4.1.1The competence model
- 4.1.2The performance model
- 4.2Implementing abstract projection rules and featural anchors
- 4.3Learning algorithm
-
4.1Base model
- 5.Experiment
- 5.1Data
- 5.2Fitting
- 5.3Results
- 5.4Discussion
- 6.General discussion
- 7.Conclusion
Notes References
References (71)
Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science, 32(5), 789–834.
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 110–118.
Barak, L., Fazly, A., & Stevenson, S. (2012). Modeling the acquisition of mental state verbs. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 1–10). Montreal, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics.
(2013). Acquisition of desires before beliefs: A computational investigation. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 231–240). Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.
(2014a). Gradual acquisition of mental state meaning: A computational investigation. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1886–1891). Québec City, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.
(2014b). Learning verb classes in an incremental model. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 37–45). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bolinger, D. (1968). Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 14(1), 3–30.
Carter, R. (1976). Some linking regularities. In On linking: Papers by Richard Carter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
Connor, M., Fisher, C., & Roth, D. (2013). Starting from scratch in semantic role labeling: Early indirect supervision. In Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Acquisition (pp. 257–296). Berlin: Springer.
de Villiers, J. G. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In J. W. Astington & J. A. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp.186–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Villiers, J. G., & De Villiers, P. A. (2000). Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false belief. In Peter Mitchell & Kevin J. Riggs (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 191–228). Hove: Psychology Press.
De Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development, 17(1), 1037–1060.
Duchi, J., Hazan, E., & Singer, Y. (2011). Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2121–2159.
Dudley, R. (2017). The role of input in discovering presupposition triggers: Figuring out what everybody already knew (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Ely, R., Gleason, J. B., MacGibbon, A., & Zaretsky, E. (2001). Attention to language: Lessons learned at the dinner table. Social Development, 10(3), 355–373.
Farkas, D. (1985). Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood. New York, NY: Garland.
Frank, M. C., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Using speakers’ referential intentions to model early cross-situational word learning. Psychological Science, 20(5), 578–585.
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73(2), 135–176.
Gleason, J. B. (1980). The acquisition of social speech routines and politeness formulas. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. N. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 21–27). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 23–64.
Grimshaw, J. (1981). Form, function and the language acquisition device. In C. L. Baker & J. J. McCarthy (Eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 165–182). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J. (to appear). Children’s attitude problems: Bootstrapping verb meaning from syntax and pragmatics. Mind and Language.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221.
Hooper, J. B. (1975). On assertive predicates. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 91–124). New York, NY: Academy Press.
Kako, E. (1997). Subcategorization semantics and the naturalness of verb-frame pairings. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 11.
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, S. (2013). Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2004). Kidz in the ’hood: Syntactic bootstrapping and the mental lexicon. In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 603–636). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2014a). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9014–9019.
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.
Papafragou, A., Cassidy, K., & Gleitman, L. (2007). When we think about thinking: The acquisition of belief verbs. Cognition, 105(1), 125–165.
Parisse, C. (2000). Automatic disambiguation of morphosyntax in spoken language corpora. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 468–481.
Perner, J., Sprung, M., Zauner, P., & Haider, H. (2003). Want that is understood well before say that, think that, and false belief: A test of de Villiers’s linguistic determinism on German–speaking children. Child Development, 74(1), 179–188.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 1, pp. 155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sagae, K., Davis, E., Lavie, A., MacWhinney, B., & Wintner, S. (2007). High-accuracy annotation and parsing of CHILDES transcripts. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Acquisition (pp. 25–32). Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Scheffler, T. (2008). Semantic operators in different dimensions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, PA.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056.
Smith, L., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106(3), 1558–1568.
Snedeker, J., & Gleitman, L. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 257–294). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Spekman, N. J., & Roth, F. P. (1985). Preschool children’s comprehension and production of directive forms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(3), 331–349.
Truckenbrodt, H. (2006). On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics, 32(3), 257–306.
Trueswell, J. C., Medina, T. N., Hafri, A., & Gleitman, L. R. (2013). Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 126–156.
Villalta, E. (2000). Spanish subjunctive clauses require ordered alternatives. In Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews (Eds.), 10th Annual Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 239–256).
(2008). Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(4), 467–522.
White, A. S. (2015). Information and incrementality in syntactic bootstrapping (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
White, A. S., Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J. (2018). Semantic information and the syntax of propositional attitude verbs. Cognitive Science, 42, 416–456.
White, A. S., & Rawlins, K. (2016). A computational model of S-selection. In Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, and Dan Burgdorf (Eds.), 26th Annual Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 641–663).
White, A. S., Rawlins, K., & Van Durme, B. (2017). The semantic proto-role linking model. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 92–98). Valencia, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics.
White, A. S., Resnik, P., Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J. (under revision). The contextual modulation of semantic information.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Perkins, Laurel, Tyler Knowlton, Alexander Williams & Jeffrey Lidz
HACQUARD, Valentine
Perkins, Laurel & Jeffrey L. Lidz
Syrett, Kristen
Anna Papafragou, John C. Trueswell & Lila R. Gleitman
Cheng, Qi & Rachel I. Mayberry
Hacquard, Valentine & Jeffrey Lidz
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
