All scientists use data visualizations to discover patterns in their phenomena that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. Likewise, we also use scientific visualizations to help us describe our verbal theories and predict those data patterns. But scientific visualization may also constitute a hindrance to theory development when new data cannot be accommodated by the current dominant framework. Here we argue that the sciences of language are currently in an interim stage using an increasingly outdated scientific visualization borrowed from the box-and-arrow flow charts of the early days of engineering and computer science. The original (and not yet fully discarded) version of this obsolete model assumes that the language faculty is composed of autonomously organized levels of linguistic representation, which in turn are assumed to be modular, organized in rank order of dominance, and feed unidirectionally into one another in stage-like algorithmic procedures. We review relevant literature in psycholinguistics and language acquisition that cannot be accommodated by the received model. Both learning and processing of language in children and adults, at various putative ‘levels’ of representation, appear to be highly integrated and interdependent, and function simultaneously rather than sequentially. The fact that half of the field sees these findings as trivially true and the other half argues fiercely against them suggests to us that the sciences of language are on the brink of a paradigm shift. We submit a new scientific visualization for language, in which stacked levels of linguistic representation are replaced by trajectories in a multidimensional space. This is not a mere redescription. Processing language in the brain equates to traversing such a space in regions afforded by multiple probabilistic cues that simultaneously activate different linguistic representations. Much still needs to be done to convert this scientific visualization into actual implemented models, but at present it allows language scientists to envision new concepts and venues for research that may assist the field in transitioning to a new conceptualization, and provide a clear direction for the next decade.
References
[1]
Ochs, E.; Jacoby, S.; Gonzales, P. Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations 1994, 2, 151–171.
Pullman, B. The Atom in the History of Human Thought; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; ISBN 0195150406.
[4]
Forster, K. Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett; Cooper, W., Walker, E., Eds.; Erlbaum Press: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1979; pp. 27–85.
[5]
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
[6]
Forster, K.; Hector, J. Cascaded versus noncascaded models of lexical and semantic processing: The turple effect. Mem. Cogn. 2002, 30, 1106–1117.
[7]
Frazier, L.; Clifton, C. Construal; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
[8]
Jackendoff, R. Foundations of Language; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
[9]
Sorace, A.; Serratrice, L. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. Int. J. Biling. 2009, 13, 195–210.
[10]
Staub, A. Word recognition and syntactic attachment in reading: Evidence for a staged architecture. J. Exp. Psychol. 2011. (in press).
[11]
Elman, J.L. Language as a dynamical system. In Mind as Motion; Port, R., van Gelder, T., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 195–223.
[12]
Spivey, M.J. The Continuity of Mind; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[13]
Trueswell, J.; Tanenhaus, M. Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005.
[14]
Kutas, M.; DeLong, K.A.; Smith, N.J. A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future; Bar, M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 190–207.
[15]
Elman, J.L.; Bates, E.A.; Johnson, M.H.; Karmiloff-Smith, A.; Parisi, D.; Plunkett, K. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.
[16]
Thelen, E.; Smith, L. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994.
Osgood, C.; Sebeok, T. Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1954, 49, 1–203.
[19]
Newell, A.; Shaw, J.C.; Simon, H.A. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychol. Rev. 1958, 65, 151–166.
[20]
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures; Mouton: The hague, The Netherlands, 1957.
[21]
Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology; Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
[22]
Bever, T.G. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the Development of Language; Hayes, J.R., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
[23]
Frazier, L. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Waltham, MA, USA, 1979.
[24]
Frazier, L.; Fodor, J. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 1979, 6, 291–325.
[25]
Pritchett, B.L. Garden path phenomena and the the grammatical basis of language processing. Language 1988, 64, 539–576.
[26]
Fodor, J.; Inoue, A. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 1994, 23, 407–434, doi:10.1007/BF02143947.
[27]
Ferreira, F.; Clifton, C. The independence of syntactic processing. J. Mem. Lang. 1986, 25, 348–368.
[28]
Rayner, K.; Carlson, M.; Frazier, L. The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1983, 22, 358–374, doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90236-0.
[29]
Tanenhaus, M.K.; Leiman, J.M.; Seidenberg, M.S. Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1979, 18, 427–440.
[30]
Seidenberg, M.S.; Tanenhaus, M.K.; Leiman, J.; Bienkowski, M. Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cogn. Psychol. 1982, 14, 489–537, doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2.
[31]
Swinney, D.A. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: Reconsideration of context effects. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1979, 18, 645–659.
[32]
Dopkins, S.; Morris, R.K.; Rayner, K. Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models. J. Mem. Lang. 1992, 31, 461–476.
[33]
Duffy, S.A.; Kambe, G.; Rayner, K. The Effect of Prior Disambiguating Context on the Comprehension of Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Movements. In On the Consequences of Meaning Selection; Gorfein, D., Ed.; American Psychological Association Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
[34]
Reber, A. The rise and (surprisingly rapid) fall of psycholinguistics. Synthese 1987, 72, 325–339.
[35]
Mattys, S.L.; White, L.; Melhorn, J.F. Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. J. Exp. Psychol. 2005, 134, 477–500.
[36]
McClelland, J.L.; Mirman, D.; Holt, L.L. Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10, 363–369, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.007.
[37]
Mattys, S.L.; Melhorn, J.F.; White, L. Effects of syntactic expectations on speech segmentation. J. Exp. Psychol. 2007, 33, 960–977.
[38]
Mattys, S.L.; Melhorn, J.F. Sentential, lexical, and acoustic effects on the perception of word boundaries. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122, 554–567, doi:10.1121/1.2735105.
[39]
Rohde, H.; Ettlinger, M. Effects of pragmatic inference on phonetic category perception. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR, USA, 11–14 August 2010; Ohlsson, S., Catrambone, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey.
[40]
Sanford, A.J.; Sturt, P. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2002, 6, 382–386.
[41]
Vu, H.; Kellas, G.; Paul, S.T. Sources of sentence constraint in lexical ambiguity resolution. Mem. Cogn. 1998, 26, 979–1001.
[42]
Fitneva, S.A.; Spivey, M.J. Context and language processing: The effect of authorship. In World Situated Language Use: Psycholinguistic, Linguistic and Computational Perspectives on Bridging the Product and Action Traditions; Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
[43]
Kawamoto, A.H. Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. J. Mem. Lang. 1993, 32, 474–516.
[44]
Tabossi, P.; Colombo, L.; Job, R. Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychol. Res. 1987, 49, 161–167.
[45]
Martin, C.; Vu, H.; Kellas, G.; Metcalf, K. Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Q. J. Exp. psychol. 1999, 52, 813–839.
[46]
Allopenna, P.D.; Magnuson, J.S.; Tanenhaus, M.K. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. J. Mem. Lang. 1998, 38, 419–439.
[47]
Tanenhaus, M.K.; Trueswell, J. Sentence comprehension. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1995.
[48]
Van Berkum, J.J.A.; Brown, C.M.; Hagoort, P. Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Mem. Lang. 1999, 41, 147–182.
[49]
Grimshaw, J. Form, Function, and the language acquisition device. In The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition; Baker, C.L., McCarthy, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981.
[50]
Pinker, S. Language Learnability and Language Development; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
[51]
Gleitman, L. The structural sources of verb meanings. Lang. Acquis. 1990, 1, 1–55.
[52]
Naigles, L. Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. J. Child Lang. 1990, 17, 357–374.
[53]
Jusczyk, P.W.; Cutler, A.; Redanz, N. Preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Dev. 1993, 64, 675–687.
[54]
Jusczyk, P.W. The Discovery of Spoken Language; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.
[55]
Jusczyk, P.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Kemler-Nelson, D.; Kennedy, L.; Woodward, A.; Piwoz, J. Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants. Cogn. Psychol. 1992, 24, 252–293.
[56]
Morgan, J.L.; Demuth, K. Signal to Syntax; LEA: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.
[57]
Soderstrom, M.; Seidl, A.; Kemler Nelson, D.; Jusczyk, P. The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants. J. Mem. Lang. 2003, 49, 249–267.
[58]
Onnis, L.; Christiansen, M.H. Lexical categories at the edge of the word. Cogn. Sci. 2008, 32, 184–221.
[59]
Saffran, J.R.; Aslin, R.N.; Newport, E.L. Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science 1996, 274, 1926–1928.
[60]
Maratsos, M.; Chalkley, M. The internal language of children’s syntax. In Children’s Language; Nelson, K.E., Ed.; Gardner Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; Volume 2.
[61]
Kuhl, P.K.; Tsao, F.M.; Liu, H.M. Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 9096–9101.
[62]
Coltheart, M.; Rastle, K.; Perry, C.; Langdon, R.; Ziegler, J. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108, 204–256.
[63]
Plaut, D.C.; McClelland, J.L.; Seidenberg, M.S.; Patterson, K. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychol. Rev. 1996, 103, 56–115.
[64]
Norris, D.; McQueen, J.M.; Cutler, A. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behav. Brain Sci. 2000, 23, 299–370.
[65]
McQueen, J.M.; Jesse, A.; Norris, D. No lexical-prelexical feedback during speech perception or: Is it time to stop playing those Christmas tapes? J. Mem. Lang. 2009, 61, 1–18, doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.03.002.
[66]
Magnuson, J.S.; McMurray, B.; Tanenhaus, M.K.; Aslin, R.N. Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past. Cogn. Sci. 2003, 27, 285–298.
[67]
Van Gompel, R.P.G.; Pickering, M.J.; Pearson, J.; Liversedge, S.P. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 2005, 52, 284–307.
[68]
Van Gompel, R.P.G.; Pickering, M.J.; Traxler, M.J. Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. J. Mem. Lang. 2001, 45, 225–258.
[69]
Farmer, T.; Anderson, S.; Spivey, M.J. Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths. J. Mem. Lang. 2007, 57, 570–595.
Gómez, R.L.; Maye, J. The developmental trajectory of nonadjacent dependency learning. Infancy 2005, 7, 183–206.
[72]
Tomasello, M. Do young children have adult syntatic competence? Cognition 2000, 74, 209–253, doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4.
[73]
Ninio, A.; Snow, C. The Development of Pragmatics: Learning to Use Language Appropriately. In Handbook of Language Acquisition; Bhatia, T.K., Ritchie, W.C., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 347–383.
[74]
Tomasello, M. Construction Grammar for kids. Constructions 2006, 1, 1–11.
[75]
Hsu, A.; Chater, N. The logical problem of language acquisition goes probabilistic: No negative evidence as a window on language acquisition. Cogn. Sci. 2010, 34, 972–1016.
[76]
Fisher, C.; Tokura, H. Prosody in speech to infants: direct and indirect acoustic cues to syntactic structure. In Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition; Morgan, J.L., Demuth, K., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 343–364.
[77]
Gerken, L.A.; Jusczyk, P.W.; Mandel, D.R. When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: Nine-month-olds’ sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases. Cognition 1994, 51, 237–265.
[78]
Jusczyk, P.W.; Kemler Nelson, D.G. Syntactic units, prosody, and psychological reality during infancy. In Signal to Syntax; Morgan, J.L., Demuth, K., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 389–408.
[79]
Pinker, S. How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua 1994, 92, 377–410, doi:10.1016/0024-3841(94)90347-6.
[80]
MacWhinney, B. The Emergence of Language; LEA: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1999.
[81]
Marslen-Wilson, W. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 1987, 25, 71–102.
[82]
Spivey, M.J.; Grosjean, M.; Knoblich, G. Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors: Thinking with your hands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 10393–10398.
[83]
Vitevitch, M.S.; Luce, P.A. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 1999, 40, 374–408.
[84]
Elman, J.L.; McClelland, J.L. Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes. J. Mem. Lang. 1988, 27, 143–165.
[85]
Rodd, J.M.; Gaskell, M.G.; Marslen-Wilson, W.D. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cogn. Sci. 2004, 28, 89–104.
[86]
Knoeferle, P.; Crocker, M.W. The coordinated interplay of scene, utterance, and world knowledge: Evidence from eye tracking. Cogn. Sci. 2006, 30, 481–529, doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_65.
[87]
MacDonald, M.C.; Pearlmutter, N.J.; Seidenberg, M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychol. Rev. 1994, 101, 676–703.
[88]
McRae, K.; Spivey-Knowlton, M.J.; Tanenhaus, M.K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 1998, 38, 283–312.
[89]
Tabor, W.; Tanenhaus, M. Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cogn. Sci. 1999, 24, 491–515.
[90]
Rao, S.C.; Rainer, G.; Miller, E.K. Integration of what and where in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science 1997, 276, 821–824.
[91]
Douglas, R.J.; Koch, C.; Mahowald, M.; Martin, K.A.C.; Suarez, H.H. Recurrent excitation in neocortical circuits. Science 1995, 269, 981–985.
[92]
Crick, F.; Asanuma, C. Certain aspects of the anatomy and physiology of the cerebral cortex. In Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition; McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986; Volume 2, pp. 333–371.
[93]
Patel, A.D.; Gibson, E.; Ratner, J.; Besson, M.; Holcomb, P.J. Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1998, 10, 717–733.
[94]
Tillmann, B.; Janata, P.; Bharucha, J. Activation of the inferior frontal cortex in musical priming. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2003, 999, 209–211.
[95]
Christiansen, M.H.; Conway, C.M.; Onnis, L. Neural responses to structural incongruencies in language and statistical learning point to similar underlying mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, USA, 29 July-1 August 2007; McNamara, D.S., Trafton, J.G., Eds.; Cognitive Science Society: Austin, TX, USA, 2007; pp. 173–178.
[96]
Farmer, T.A.; Christiansen, M.H.; Monaghan, P. Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 12203–12208.
[97]
Trueswell, J.C.; Tanenhaus, M.K.; Garnsey, S. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 1994, 33, 285–318.
[98]
Tanenhaus, M.K.; Spivey-Knowlton, M.J.; Eberhard, K.M.; Sedivy, J.E. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 1995, 268, 1632–1634.
[99]
Edelman, S. Representation is representation of similarities. Behav. Brain Sci. 1998, 21, 449–498.
[100]
McClelland, J.L.; Rogers, T.T. The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2003, 4, 310–322.
[101]
Regier, T. The Human Semantic Potential. Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.
[102]
Snider, J.; Osgood, C. Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook; Aldine Atherton: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
[103]
Nycz, J. The dynamics of near-merger in accommodation. Proc. ConSOLE XIII 2005, 273–285.
[104]
Shepard, R. Psychological representation of speech sounds. In Human Communication: A Unified View; David, E.E., Denes, P.B., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1972; pp. 67–113.
Elman, J.L. An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2004, 7, 301–306.
[107]
Hubbard, A.L.; Wilson, S.; Callan, D.E.; Dapretto, M. Giving speech a hand: Gesture modulates activity in auditory cortex during speech perception. J. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009, 30, 1028–1037.
[108]
Kelly, S.D.; Ozyurek, A.; Maris, E. Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21, 260–267.
[109]
Culicover, P.W.; Nowak, A. Dynamical Grammar: Minimalism, Acquisition, and Change; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.
[110]
Tabor, W.; Hutchins, S. Mapping the Syntax/Semantics Coastline. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA, August 13-15 2000; Gleitman, L., Joshi, A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA;; pp. 511–516.
[111]
Bellman, R.E. Adaptive Control Processes; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1961.
[112]
Marcus, M.P. Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Languages; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980.
[113]
Jurafsky, D. A probabilistic model of lexical access and disambiguation. Cogn. Sci. 1996, 20, 137–194.
[114]
Rolls, E.T.; Tovee, M.J. Sparseness of the neuronal representation of stimuli in the primate temporal visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 1995, 73, 713–726.
[115]
Port, R.F. Language is a social institution: Why phonemes and words do not have explicit psychological form. Ecol. Psychol. 2010, 22, 304–326.
[116]
Wright, J.J.; Liley, D.T.J. Dynamics of the brain at global and microscopic scales: Neural networks and the EEG. Behav. Brain Sci. 1996, 19, 285–309.
[117]
Slobin, D.I. From “thought and language” to “thinking to speaking”. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity; Gumperz, J.J., Levinson, S.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996; pp. 70–96.
[118]
Kempson, R.M.; Gabbay, D.M.; Meyer-Viol, W. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001.
[119]
Tabor, W. Fractal encoding of context-free grammars in connectionist networks. Expert Syst. 2000, 17, 41–56.
[120]
Tabor, W.; Juliano, C.; Tanenhaus, M.K. Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1997, 12, 211–271.
[121]
Botvinick, M.; Plaut, D.C. Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to routine sequential action and its pathologies. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 111, 395–429.
[122]
Van Gelder, T.; Port, R. It’s about time: Overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of cognition; Port, R., van Gelder, T., Eds.; Bradford Books/MITP: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 1–43.
[123]
Burnham, D.; Tyler, M.; Horlyck, S. Periods of speech perception development and their vestiges in adulthood. In An Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in Honor of Henning Wode; Burmeister, P., Piske, T., Rohde, A., Eds.; Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier: Trier, Germany, 2002; pp. 281–300.
[124]
Cook, V.J. Effects of the Second Language on the First; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 2003; p. 268.
[125]
Davies, A. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 2003.
[126]
Grosjean, F. Studying Bilinguals; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008.
[127]
Goldstein, M.H.; King, A.P.; West, M.J. Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8030–8035.
[128]
Dale, R.; Spivey, M.J. Unraveling the dyad: Using recurrence analysis to explore patterns of syntactic coordination between children and caregivers in conversation. Lang. Learn. 2006, 56, 391–430.
[129]
Lisker, L. “Voicing” in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ vs. /p/ in trochees. Lang. Speech 1986, 29, 3–11.
[130]
Port, R. Rich memory and distributed phonology. Lang. Sci. 2010, 32, 43–55.
[131]
Bannard, C.; Lieven, E.; Tomasello, M. Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 17284–17289.
[132]
Bates, E.; Goodman, J. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1997, 12, 507–584.
[133]
Christiansen, M.H.; Kirby, S. Language evolution; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.
[134]
Christiansen, M.H.; Chater, N. Language as shaped by the brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 2008, 31, 489–558.
[135]
Evans, N.; Levinson, S.C. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 2009, 32, 429–448.
[136]
Elman, J.L. Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 1993, 48, 71–99.
[137]
McMurray, B. Defusing the childhood vocabulary explosion. Science 2007, 317, doi:10.1126/science.1144073.
[138]
Joanisse, M.F.; Seidenberg, M.S. Specific language impairment in children: An impairment in grammar or processing? Trends Cogn. Sci. 1998, 2, 240–246, doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01186-3.
[139]
Ziegler, J.C.; Pech-Georgel, C.; George, F.; Alario, F.-X.; Lorenzi, C. Deficits in speech perception explain language learning impairment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 14110–14115.
[140]
Tallal, P.; Piercy, M. Defects of non-verbal auditory perception in children with developmental aphasia. Nature 1973, 241, 468–469.
[141]
Kuhl, P.K. A new view of language acquisition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 11850–11857.
[142]
D？browska, E.; Street, J. Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Lang. Sci. 2006, 28, 604–615.
[143]
Chipere, N. Native speaker variations in syntactic competence: Implications for first language teaching. Lang. Aware. 2001, 107–124.
[144]
Sasaki, Y. Individual variation in a Japanese sentence comprehension task: Form, functions and strategies. Appl. Linguist. 1997, 18, 508–537.
[145]
Smith, L.; Thelen, E. Development as a dynamic system. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003, 7, 343–347.
[146]
Lindley, D. Uncertainty; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[147]
Card, S.; Mackinlay, J.; Shneiderman, B. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think; Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1999.
[148]
Newell, A. Physical symbol systems. Cogn. Sci. 1980, 4, 135–183.
[149]
Baker, M.C. The Atoms of Language; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
[150]
Anderson, J.R.; Lebiere, C. The Atomic Components of Thought; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998.
