Understanding the developmental dynamics of subject omission: the role of processing limitations in learning

Abstract

P. Bloom's (1990) data on subject omission are often taken as strong support for the view that child language can be explained in terms of full competence coupled with processing limitations in production. This paper examines whether processing limitations in learning may provide a more parsimonious explanation of the data without the need to assume full competence. We extended P. Bloom's study by using a larger sample (12 children) and measuring subject-omission phenomena in three developmental phases. The results revealed a Verb Phrase-length effect consistent with that reported by P. Bloom. However, contrary to the predictions of the processing limitations account, the proportion of overt subjects that were pronominal increased with developmental phase. The data were simulated with MOSAIC, a computational model that learns to produce progressively longer utterances as a function of training. MOSAIC was able to capture all of the effects reported by P. Bloom through a resource-limited distributional analysis of child-directed speech. Since MOSAIC does not have any built-in linguistic knowledge, these results show that the phenomena identified by P. Bloom do not constitute evidence for underlying competence on the part of the child. They also underline the need to develop more empirically grounded models of the way that processing limitations in learning might influence the language acquisition process.Subject omission and processing limitations in learning 3

Iconic gesture and speech integration in younger and older adults

“…The authors attributed this age difference in the integration ability to three-year olds' limited capacity to take into account contextual information in communication. This may stem from limited working memory capacity in young children, in line with the findings that young children have limited capacity for language processing as compared to adults (e.g., Bloom, 1970Bloom, , 1990Freudenthal, Pine, & Gobet, 2007). Furthermore, Sekine and colleagues also found that both three-year olds and five-year olds relied more on the speech modality than the gesture modality when they failed to choose the integration match in VG.…”

Prospects for usage‐based computational models of grammatical development: argument structure and semantic roles

“…Usage‐based computational accounts of grammatical development have primarily focused on what can be learned from distributional information. This approach has met with considerable success, illuminating the learning of syntactic categories, specific developmental patterns, and the acquisition of construction‐like units, in addition to illustrating the emerging complexity of children's grammatical knowledge more generally . Yet, distributional approaches are unlikely to provide a complete account of children's language use .…”

“…Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in developmental psycholinguistics, where, for over three decades (Ref 1), computational models have increasingly contributed to the long-standing debate over the nature of syntax acquisition. Computational modeling-as approach has met with considerable success, illuminating the learning of syntactic categories, 2 specific developmental patterns, 3 and the acquisition of construction-like units, 4 in addition to illustrating the emerging complexity of children's grammatical knowledge more generally. 5,6 Yet, distributional approaches are unlikely to provide a complete account of children's language use.…”

The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed case study

“…Bloom 1990). However, Freudenthal et al (2007) demonstrated, using a computational model with an utterance-final bias, that the observed association between the length of the verb phrase and the presence/omission of a subject argument can be explained in terms of performance-limited learning. If children are limited in how much information they are able to learn at any one time, utterances including longer verb phrases are less likely to be fully learned than those with shorter verb phrases, thus sentences with pronominal objects are more likely to be learned with their subject arguments than are those with longer noun phrase objects.…”