Semantic bootstrapping

Last updated

Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of child language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. [1] This theory proposes that children, when acquiring words, will recognize that words label conceptual categories, such as objects or actions. Children will then use these semantic categories as a cue to the syntactic categories, such as nouns and verbs. Having identified particular words as belonging to a syntactic category, they will then look for other correlated properties of those categories, which will allow them to identify how nouns and verbs are expressed in their language. Additionally, children will use perceived conceptual relations, such as Agent of an event, to identify grammatical relations, such as Subject of a sentence. This knowledge, in turn, allows the learner to look for other correlated properties of those grammatical relations. [2]

Contents

This theory requires two critical assumptions to be true. First, it requires that children are able to perceive the meaning of words and sentences. It does not require that they do so by any particular method, but the child seeking to learn the language must somehow come to associate words with objects and actions in the world. Second, children must know that there is a strong correspondence between semantic categories and syntactic categories. The relationship between semantic and syntactic categories can then be used to iteratively create, test, and refine internal grammar rules until the child's understanding aligns with the language to which they are exposed, allowing for better categorization methods to be deduced as the child obtains more knowledge of the language. [1]

Logic

The semantic bootstrapping theory was first proposed by Steven Pinker in 1982 as a possible explanation of how a child can formulate grammar rules when acquiring a first language. [3] Pinker's theory was inspired by two other proposed solutions to the bootstrapping problem. In 1981, Grimshaw claimed that there are correspondences between syntactic and semantic categories [4] and in 1982, Macnamara postulated that certain semantic elements could serve as an inductive basis for syntactic elements, like parts of speech. [5] Pinker's theory takes these ideas one step further by claiming that children inherently categorize words based upon their semantic properties and have an innate ability to infer syntactic categories from these semantic categories. [1]

A child acquiring a first language possesses, at all stages, an expectation that words will fall into specific grammatical categories. The child does not possess, however, an innate knowledge of how syntactic categories are expressed in the language they are acquiring. When children observe that a word is used to reference a semantic category, they can use their knowledge of the relations between semantic and syntactic categories to infer that this word belongs to a particular syntactic category. As children associate more words with syntactic categories, they can begin tracking other properties that can help them identify these syntactic categories in the absence of semantic evidence. Furthermore, identifying conceptual relations can help them to identify grammatical relations in a similar way. By identifying the semantic categories of words and phrases, children will know the corresponding syntactic categories of these elements and ultimately bootstrap their way to possessing a full understanding of the language’s grammar and formal expression. [1]

Evidence

Rondal and Cession [6] tested the viability of the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis by observing the speech of 18 monolingual English speaking mothers to their normally developing children age 1 to 2 years old. In this experiment, investigators tape-recorded two half-hour sessions of mother-child verbal interactions. Child-directed utterances were extracted and coded for the 16 dependent variables below. These included the semantic categories, grammatical function categories, and part of speech categories. The semantic bootstrapping hypothesis states that a child uses semantic categories to infer grammatical categories. [6] For example, action words (Dependent variable) indicate a verb (Categories), and the names of things (Dependent variable) indicate a noun (Categories). The focus of the experiment was to find out whether the grammatical and semantic categories and relations were correlated in the speech children heard. If they were, then that would indicate the plausibility of the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis.

CategoriesDependent variables
Semantic categories:(1) physical object (a. human, b. inanimate, c. other), (2) abstract object, (3) event
Grammatical function categories:(4) subject, (5) direct object, (6) obliques, (7) nouns
Verbs:(8) action verbs, (9) mental verbs (a. perceptual, b. cognitive, c. affective), (10) state verbs
Prepositions:(11) space, (12) time, (13) possession or determination, (14) cause or consequence
Adjectives:(15) concrete, (16) abstract

The major findings of the experiment show that in terms of grammatical function categories, agents of actions were associated to subjects of the sentence, patients and themes as objects, and goals, locations and instruments as oblique or indirect objects. Rondal and Cession suggested that the input evidence assists children to identify those grammatical function categories by using thematic relations (agent, patient, etc.). [6] They found that semantic notions reliably correlate with specific syntactic elements in parental speech and this may support the child’s construction of grammatical categories. [6] Hence, the results of this experiment point to the soundness of the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis.

Additional evidence for semantic bootstrapping is illustrated by Gropen et al. [7] and Kim et al. [8]

In the experiment done by Gropen et al., children and adults were tested to see whether they could predict a verb’s syntax by using the verb’s meaning. In the experiment, locative verbs were used. Locative verbs link the relationship between a moving object and a location. [7] The moving object is known as the ‘Figure’ and the location is known as the ‘Ground’. For example, in the sentence “Peter poured coffee into the cup.” ‘Pour’ is the locative verb, ‘coffee’ is the ‘Figure’ while ‘cup’ is the ‘Ground’. Children and adults were taught novel verbs for actions that involved the transfer of objects to a container. Then they were tested on whether they were able to express the figure or the ground argument as the direct object of the verb. The major findings of Gropen et al.’s experiments illustrated that both children and adults showed no tendency to express the figure entity as the direct object when faced with a locative verb. [7] Instead, when there is a change of state of the ground object, e.g. The glass (ground object) was filled with water (figure object), children and adults are more likely to select that ground object as the direct object. [7] This shows that children are able to link locative verbs to their complements accurately based on their understanding of the meaning of the verb. The result shows that verbs' syntactic argument structures are predictable from their semantic representations.

Similarly, in the experiment done by Kim et al., children and adults were tested whether they could describe an event using a specific locative verb provided by the experimenters. The major finding was that English-speaking children made errors in the syntax with the ground verb ‘fill’, but they did not make errors with figure verbs like ‘pour’. [8] Kim et al. suggested that the pattern of errors reflects constraints on the syntax-semantics mapping. No language uses manner of motion verbs like 'pour' in the ground syntax. Children's lack of errors with manner of motion verbs suggests that they are subject to the same constraint that shapes cross linguistic variability. Hence, this experiment illustrated that children respect constraints on how verb meanings relate to verb syntax.

Challenges

The semantic bootstrapping hypothesis has been criticized by some linguists. An alternative hypothesis to semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, proposes that verbs are always learned based on their syntactic properties rather than their semantic properties. [9] This is sometimes construed as being incompatible with semantic bootstrapping, which proposes that verb meanings can be identified from the extralinguistic context of use. Pinker does not see syntactic bootstrapping as an alternative or necessarily bootstrapping at all. [10] Pinker makes the critical distinction that semantic bootstrapping seeks to answer how children can learn syntax and grammar while the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis is only concerned with how children learn verb meanings. Pinker believes that syntactic bootstrapping is more accurately "syntactic cueing of word meaning" and that this use of syntactic knowledge to obtain new semantic knowledge is in no way contradictory to semantic bootstrapping, but is another technique a child may use in later stages of language acquisition. [10]

Lila Gleitman argues that word learning is not as easy as the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis makes it seem. [9] It is not always possible to just look at the world and learn a word from the situation. There are many events in which two verbs could be used to describe the situation. In the example of a chasing and fleeing event, both words could be used to describe the event at hand. For example, both of the following sentences could be used to describe the same event:

  1. The cat is fleeing the fox
  2. The fox is chasing the cat

It is not reasonable to expect a child to be able to figure out which is the correct meaning just by witnessing the event. [9] Additionally, in many situations there are many events happening all at once. For example, if a child were in a park and their parent said "look the fox is chasing the cat" how would the child know that they should be directing their attention to the fox and the cat and not the dogs or the other children. This is similar to the gavagai problem. Essentially it is very hard to assume that a child could use word meanings to learn something about syntax when the act of learning the word meanings in the first place is not so easy. Gleitman also points out the near impossibility of learning some other verbs using this hypothesis. Verbs in which there is no action associated with it like 'think', 'hope', 'guess' and 'wonder' are hypothesized to be particularly hard to learn. [9] If children only learned words based on what they saw in the world they would not be able to learn the meanings of these words. [9]

Siegel argues that the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis can not account for how children acquire case marking in split ergative languages. [11] In these languages the agent is not uniformly getting the same case in every sentence. As a result, the child would not have the evidence necessary in the semantics to learn the correct case markings, since the case is not being uniformly assigned. [11]

Ambridge et al. argues against the existence of a universal grammar and in turn against the plausibility of semantic bootstrapping. [12] They argue that since word categories (like verbs) are not cross linguistically applied the same way, these categories must not be innate. If these categories are not innate then they can't be used for semantic bootstrapping, since the theory is reliant on these categories being innate. [12] They also argue that because the patient of the sentence and the instrument of the sentence can occur in the same place this would complicate the child's ability to learn which role corresponds to each part of the scene. [12] For example:

  1. The kid hit the dog with the ball.
  2. The kid hit the ball against the dog.

In these sentences the ball is the instrument and the dog is the patient. However, they can occur in either order in English. There are also languages in which they can only occur in the second order. As a result, the child does not have the information necessary in the semantics to learn these orders, and could reasonably learn both. [12]

Finally Ambridge et al. argue that because children have distributional learning, where they can see trends in sentences like determiners go with nouns, this is sufficient for learning syntax and correlations between syntax and semantics are not necessary to help learn the syntax of the language. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syntax</span> System responsible for combining morphemes into complex structures

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Universal grammar</span> Theory of the biological component of the language faculty

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of the innate biological component of the language faculty, usually credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that there are innate constraints on what the grammar of a possible human language could be. When linguistic stimuli are received in the course of language acquisition, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG. The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of natural human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued languages are so diverse that such universality is rare, and the theory of universal grammar remains controversial among linguists.

Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generative grammar</span> Theory in linguistics

Generative grammar, or generativism, is a linguistic theory that regards linguistics as the study of a hypothesised innate grammatical structure. It is a biological or biologistic modification of earlier structuralist theories of linguistics, deriving ultimately from glossematics. Generative grammar considers grammar as a system of rules that generates exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language. It is a system of explicit rules that may apply repeatedly to generate an indefinite number of sentences which can be as long as one wants them to be. The difference from structural and functional models is that the object is base-generated within the verb phrase in generative grammar. This purportedly cognitive structure is thought of as being a part of a universal grammar, a syntactic structure which is caused by a genetic mutation in humans.

Theta roles are the names of the participant roles associated with a predicate: the predicate may be a verb, an adjective, a preposition, or a noun. If an object is in motion or in a steady state as the speakers perceives the state, or it is the topic of discussion, it is called a theme. The participant is usually said to be an argument of the predicate. In generative grammar, a theta role or θ-role is the formal device for representing syntactic argument structure—the number and type of noun phrases—required syntactically by a particular verb. For example, the verb put requires three arguments.

Construction grammar is a family of theories within the field of cognitive linguistics which posit that constructions, or learned pairings of linguistic patterns with meanings, are the fundamental building blocks of human language. Constructions include words, morphemes, fixed expressions and idioms, and abstract grammatical rules such as the passive voice or the ditransitive. Any linguistic pattern is considered to be a construction as long as some aspect of its form or its meaning cannot be predicted from its component parts, or from other constructions that are recognized to exist. In construction grammar, every utterance is understood to be a combination of multiple different constructions, which together specify its precise meaning and form.

In linguistics, an argument is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, the complement is a closely related concept. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form a predicate-argument structure. The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with (content) verbs and noun phrases (NPs), although other syntactic categories can also be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished from adjuncts. While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional; they are not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate. Most theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge arguments and adjuncts, although the terminology varies, and the distinction is generally believed to exist in all languages. Dependency grammars sometimes call arguments actants, following Lucien Tesnière (1959).

In linguistics, volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject, or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action. Volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science, is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can then be expressed in a given language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that a given action has been done intentionally, or willingly. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically. When using verbs of volition in English, like "want" or "prefer", these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex structural consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding.

Bootstrapping is a term used in language acquisition in the field of linguistics. It refers to the idea that humans are born innately equipped with a mental faculty that forms the basis of language. It is this language faculty that allows children to effortlessly acquire language. As a process, bootstrapping can be divided into different domains, according to whether it involves semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, prosodic bootstrapping, or pragmatic bootstrapping.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biolinguistics</span> Study of the biology and evolution of language

Biolinguistics can be defined as the study of biology and the evolution of language. It is highly interdisciplinary as it is related to various fields such as biology, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, mathematics, and neurolinguistics to explain the formation of language. It is important as it seeks to yield a framework by which we can understand the fundamentals of the faculty of language. This field was first introduced by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Arizona. It was first introduced in 1971, at an international meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Biolinguistics, also called the biolinguistic enterprise or the biolinguistic approach, is believed to have its origins in Noam Chomsky's and Eric Lenneberg's work on language acquisition that began in the 1950s as a reaction to the then-dominant behaviorist paradigm. Fundamentally, biolinguistics challenges the view of human language acquisition as a behavior based on stimulus-response interactions and associations. Chomsky and Lenneberg militated against it by arguing for the innate knowledge of language. Chomsky in 1960s proposed the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) as a hypothetical tool for language acquisition that only humans are born with. Similarly, Lenneberg (1967) formulated the Critical Period Hypothesis, the main idea of which being that language acquisition is biologically constrained. These works were regarded as pioneers in the shaping of biolinguistic thought, in what was the beginning of a change in paradigm in the study of language.

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

In certain theories of linguistics, thematic relations, also known as semantic roles, are the various roles that a noun phrase may play with respect to the action or state described by a governing verb, commonly the sentence's main verb. For example, in the sentence "Susan ate an apple", Susan is the doer of the eating, so she is an agent; an apple is the item that is eaten, so it is a patient.

<i>Aspects of the Theory of Syntax</i>

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax is a book on linguistics written by American linguist Noam Chomsky, first published in 1965. In Aspects, Chomsky presented a deeper, more extensive reformulation of transformational generative grammar (TGG), a new kind of syntactic theory that he had introduced in the 1950s with the publication of his first book, Syntactic Structures. Aspects is widely considered to be the foundational document and a proper book-length articulation of Chomskyan theoretical framework of linguistics. It presented Chomsky's epistemological assumptions with a view to establishing linguistic theory-making as a formal discipline comparable to physical sciences, i.e. a domain of inquiry well-defined in its nature and scope. From a philosophical perspective, it directed mainstream linguistic research away from behaviorism, constructivism, empiricism and structuralism and towards mentalism, nativism, rationalism and generativism, respectively, taking as its main object of study the abstract, inner workings of the human mind related to language acquisition and production.

The mental lexicon is defined as a mental dictionary that contains information regarding the word store of a language user, such as their meanings, pronunciations, and syntactic characteristics. The mental lexicon is used in linguistics and psycholinguistics to refer to individual speakers' lexical, or word, representations. However, there is some disagreement as to the utility of the mental lexicon as a scientific construct.

Syntactic bootstrapping is a theory in developmental psycholinguistics and language acquisition which proposes that children learn word meanings by recognizing syntactic categories and the structure of their language. It is proposed that children have innate knowledge of the links between syntactic and semantic categories and can use these observations to make inferences about word meaning. Learning words in one's native language can be challenging because the extralinguistic context of use does not give specific enough information about word meanings. Therefore, in addition to extralinguistic cues, conclusions about syntactic categories are made which then lead to inferences about a word's meaning. This theory aims to explain the acquisition of lexical categories such as verbs, nouns, etc. and functional categories such as case markers, determiners, etc.

The Integrational theory of language is the general theory of language that has been developed within the general linguistic approach of integrational linguistics.

Prosodic bootstrapping in linguistics refers to the hypothesis that learners of a primary language (L1) use prosodic features such as pitch, tempo, rhythm, amplitude, and other auditory aspects from the speech signal as a cue to identify other properties of grammar, such as syntactic structure. Acoustically signaled prosodic units in the stream of speech may provide critical perceptual cues by which infants initially discover syntactic phrases in their language. Although these features by themselves are not enough to help infants learn the entire syntax of their native language, they provide various cues about different grammatical properties of the language, such as identifying the ordering of heads and complements in the language using stress prominence, indicating the location of phrase boundaries, and word boundaries. It is argued that prosody of a language plays an initial role in the acquisition of the first language helping children to uncover the syntax of the language, mainly due to the fact that children are sensitive to prosodic cues at a very young age.

In language acquisition, negative evidence is information concerning what is not possible in a language. Importantly, negative evidence does not show what is grammatical; that is positive evidence. In theory, negative evidence would help eliminate ungrammatical constructions by revealing what is not grammatical. Direct negative evidence refers to comments made by an adult language-user in response to a learner's ungrammatical utterance. Indirect negative evidence refers to the absence of ungrammatical sentences in the language that the child is exposed to. There is debate among linguists and psychologists about whether negative evidence can help children determine the grammar of their language. Negative evidence, if it is used, could help children rule out ungrammatical constructions in their language.

In linguistics, a form-meaning mismatch is a natural mismatch between the grammatical form and its expected meaning. Such form-meaning mismatches happen everywhere in language. Nevertheless, there is often an expectation of a one-to-one relationship between meaning and form, and indeed, many traditional definitions are based on such an assumption. For example,

Verbs come in three tenses: past, present, and future. The past is used to describe things that have already happened. The present tense is used to describe things that are happening right now, or things that are continuous. The future tense describes things that have yet to happen.

In linguistics, the syntax–semantics interface is the interaction between syntax and semantics. Its study encompasses phenomena that pertain to both syntax and semantics, with the goal of explaining correlations between form and meaning. Specific topics include scope, binding, and lexical semantic properties such as verbal aspect and nominal individuation, semantic macroroles, and unaccusativity.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Pinker, Steven (1984). The Semantic Bootstrapping Hypothesis.
  2. ↑ Höhle, Barbara (2009). "Bootstrapping mechanisms in first language acquisition". Linguistics. 47 (2): 363–364. doi:10.1515/ling.2009.013. S2CID   145004323.
  3. ↑ Pinker, S. (1982). A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 53–63.
  4. ↑ Grimshaw, J. 1981. Form, function, and the language acquisition device. In C.L. Baker and J.J. McCarthy, The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press, pp. 165-182
  5. ↑ Macnamara, J. 1982. Names for Things: A Study of Child Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Rondal, J. & Cession, A. (1990). "Input Evidence Regarding the Semantic Bootstrapping Hypothesis". Journal of Child Language. 17 (3): 711–717. doi:10.1017/S0305000900010965. PMID   2269705. S2CID   46498161.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. 1 2 3 4 Gropen, J.; Pinker, S.; Hollander, M.; Goldberg, R. (1991). "Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure". Cognition. 41 (1): 153–195. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3. PMID   1790653. S2CID   15737615.
  8. 1 2 Kim, M.; Landau, B.; Phillips, C. (1999). "Cross-linguistic Differences in Children's Syntax for Locative Verbs". Proceedings of the 23rd Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 337–348.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Gleitman, Lila (1990). "The Structural Sources of Verb Meaning". Language Acquisition. 1: 3–55. doi:10.1207/s15327817la0101_2. S2CID   144713838.
  10. 1 2 Pinker, S (1994). "How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics?". Lingua. 94: 337–410. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(94)90347-6.
  11. 1 2 Siegel, Laura. "Ergativity and Semantic Bootstrapping" (PDF). Linguistic Society of America.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Ambridge, Ben; Pine, Julian (2014). "Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn't help" (PDF). Language. 90 (3): e53–e90. doi:10.1353/lan.2014.0051. S2CID   63848597.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.