Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus

Recent challenges to Chomsky's poverty of the stimulus thesis for language acquisition suggest that children's primary data may carry "indirect evidence" about linguistic constructions despite containing no instances of them. Indirect evidence is claimed to suffice for grammar acquisition, without need for innate knowledge. This article reports experiments based on those of Reali and Christiansen (2005) , who demonstrated that a simple bigram language model can induce the correct form of auxiliary inversion in certain complex questions. This article investigates the nature of the indirect evidence that supports this learning, and assesses how reliably it is available. Results confirm the original finding for one specific sentence type but show that the model's success is highly circumscribed. It performs poorly on inversion in related constructions in English and Dutch. Because other, more powerful statistical models have so far been shown to succeed only on the same limited subset of cases as the bigram model, it remains to be seen whether stimulus richness can be substantiated more generally.     

Relative Clause Gap-Filling in Children with Specific Language Impairment

Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have been observed to have production and perception difficulties with sentences containing long-distance dependencies, but it is unclear whether this is due to impairment in grammatical knowledge or in processing mechanisms. The current study addressed this issue by examining automatic on-line gap-filling in relative clauses, as well as off-line comprehension of the same stimulus sentences. As predicted by both knowledge impairment and processing impairment models, SLI children showed lack of immediate gap-filling after the relative clause verb, in comparison to a control group of typically developing children. However, on the off-line measure of comprehension of the same stimuli sentences, SLI children and TD children did not differ qualitatively. This finding is incompatible with knowledge impairment. We interpret the results to show that SLI children have impaired processing mechanisms (such as temporally delayed gap-filling) but are not impaired in their grammatical knowledge.