Evaluating learning-strategy components

Being fair (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven)

Bibliographic Data

ID14616116
AuthorsLisa Pearl (0000-0001-6987-6092, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume90
Issue3
Pagese107-e114
Publication date2014-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLanguage (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0097-8507 • E-ISSN: 1535-0665
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1353/lan.2014.0048
OpenAlexW2061372116
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited1

I completely agree with Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven (AP&L) that anyone proposing a learning-strategy component needs to demonstrate precisely how that component helps solve the language acquisition task. To this end, I discuss how computational modeling is a tool well suited to doing exactly this, and that it has the added benefit of highlighting hidden assumptions underlying learning strategies. I also suggest general criteria relating to utility and usability that we can use to evaluate potential learning strategies. As a response to AP&L's request for Universal Grammar (UG) components that actually do work, I additionally provide a review of one potentially UG component that is part ofa successful learning strategy for syntactic islands, and that satisfies the evaluation criteria I propose

Component (thermodynamics) · Grammar · Human–computer interaction · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Systems engineering · Task (project management) · Usability · Work (physics) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Speech and dialogue systems · Topic Modeling

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub