UE242 - LING 203 Language Acquisition & Processing

• Institut Jean-Nicod
  29 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris
  Salle Ribot
  2nd semestre / hebdomadaire, lundi 14:00-17:00
  du 30 janvier 2023 au 15 mai 2023
  Nombre de séances : 12

Dernière modification : 28 juin 2022 10:07

Type d'UE

Enseignements fondamentaux de master

Disciplines

Linguistique, sémantique, Psychologie et sciences cognitives

Page web

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fC9ZHRjMqZZCoAzvA_7BhNoLmdCUpj7E6lU94AOQwz8/edit 

Langues

anglais

L’enseignement est uniquement dispensé dans cette langue.

Mots-clés

Apprentissage Développement Linguistique Psychologie

Aires culturelles

Amérique du Nord Europe France

• Séminaires de tronc commun – Sciences cognitives – M1/S2-M2/S4
  Suivi et validation – semestriel hebdomadaire = 6 ECTS
  MCC – contrôle continu, fiche de lecture

Contacts additionnels

cogmaster@psl.eu

Informations pratiques

Classes will take place in person @ENS (29, rue d'Ulm) Salle T. Ribot

Responsable UE: Alex de Carvalho

E-mail: alex.de-carvalho@u-paris.fr

Office: 6th floor at the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l'Éducation de l’Enfant - LaPsyDÉ, La Sorbonne - Université de Paris/CNRS

46 rue des Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris

 

TA: Maureen de Seyssel

E-mail: maureen.deseyssel@gmail.com

Office: Centre des Sciences des Données (CSD), 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris 

Direction de travaux des étudiants

Assessments - Course Requirements and Grading

You will be evaluated in three ways.

1. Online Forum 

a1) Participation (35% of the final grade). Each week, you should post one or more helpful and/or thought-generating comment, question, or answer bearing on the reading for that week on the online forum corresponding to that week on our Moodle webpage (section “Class Participation - Readings Forum”). Your participation can be a clarification question/answer (if there is something you did not understand, or you are answering someone who asked a clarification question); or it can bear on one of the areas that will be used to evaluate your article commentary (see item B below: research question, lit review, key term, methodology, claim, conclusions). Please use tags to indicate which it is. Your text should be maximally 250 words long - any extra words will not be read. It should be submitted by 23:59 on the Friday before the class. Grading only takes into account the first comment posted by you, but you are welcome to make more than one comment. There is a maximum of 2 points per class awarded (0=no participation or off-topic ; 1=satisfactory participation ; 2= good comment) for all classes except the very first one, and the one for which you are moderator (see next item).

a2) Moderation (10% of the final grade). For one class out of the 11 that have a forum, you will be in charge of systematizing the forum participation. Read comments and identify salient themes and/or questions that should be brought up in class, then post this as the final intervention in the corresponding forum section (“Moderation Comments” on Moodle). You must do this between Saturday at 00:00 and Sunday 23:59, so that the instructor has time to read your summary on Monday morning. When you are the moderator, you do not need to post a regular comment. If you are two moderators on the same week, post only one shared comment. The schedule of moderations for the entire semester will be fixed at the beginning of the semester (week of Feb 1st). It is now available here (link also accessible from Moodle).

B) Article commentary (50% of the grade). Imagine that you are a referee engaged in a peer-reviewed process for a generalist scientific journal. As a reviewer, your task is to evaluate an article following the 8 guiding criteria below. All criteria should be mentioned in your commentary. Each should be addressed by stating to what extent the manuscript meets it, and if not, what modifications or additions would be desirable. The text should be maximally 2000 words long (excluding bibliography, if any is cited), written in English or French. It is mandatory to write an approximate word count on the first page, and include a bibliography (using APA6 standards) on a separate page. 

You and the instructors will select one article (from this list) based on your expertise and interests.

Guidelines for article commentary:

1. Research question: Has a research question been posed explicitly? (Yes or no.) If so, what is it according to the authors? If not, what do you think the research question should be, given the contents of the paper? Please bear in mind that a question is not the same as a theory or a hypothesis.

2. Lit review: Is the literature review representative of diverse theoretical approaches to the research question? (Yes or no.) If yes, how? If not, what is it missing? 

3. Key term (paper): Provide at least one example of a key concept or theoretical approach that has been defined and one that has not been defined. If you cannot find an example because they have all been defined or not defined, argument this clearly.

4. Key term (class): Think back to the key linguistic and/or cognitive terms discussed in class; which one would be most relevant to this paper? Have the authors defined it? If not, what is the definition underlying their work? In either case, give a rationale of how a different definition would change their approach. 

5. Methodology: Describe the methodology used. In what ways is this methodology, in principle, an appropriate or inappropriate methodology to answer the main research question?

6. Claim: Give one example of a claim made by the authors. A claim is a statement for which there is no objective basis, and can be thus as opposed to a conclusion, which is defined as a statement  that is directly supported by the data/arguments. Do the authors present that claim as such (or do they confuse claims and conclusions)? 

7. Conclusions: Bearing in mind the research question stated in #1, summarize briefly the conclusions drawn by the authors. In what ways do the data and/or the arguments conceptually support or not these conclusions? 

8. Other comments: Draw on your own strengths to add something special to your review! Some examples are:

a) Commenting on the soundness of the experiments, statistics, and other analyses (including conceptual arguments).

b) OR: Providing a convincing argument whereby changing a key parameter of the methodology could lead to results opposite to those found.

c) OR: Name something missing from the literature review and explain how adding this piece of information would have affected the paper.

d) OR: anything else!

Choose one comment and develop it. In the case of multiple comments, only the first one will be graded.

C) In class participation (5% of the grade). Your in-class participation helps us evaluate your overall engagement with the course. There are many ways to participate even when the class is virtual, either by directly asking questions or using the online chat/forum. Your participation can be in English or in French. There is a maximum of 1 point per class awarded (0=no participation ; 1= participated).

3c. Textbook and readings

We will read primary scientific literature. See bibliography at the end, and course schedule below. It is mandatory to read all of the week's readings. The readings are all available on Moodle (see “Readings” section).

Réception des candidats

-

Pré-requis

There are no necessary pre-requisites. The following readings/viewings, however, should inspire some questions (provided in largely historical order):

Classics in the History of Psychology: Remarks on the Seat of the Faculty of Articulated Language, Following an Observation of Aphemia (Loss of Speech) by Mr. Paul Broca (1861)

Pinker, S. (1995).  Language acquisition.  In L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science:  Language. MIT Press. 

TedTalk - Susan Savage-Rumbaugh: The gentle genius of bonobos

Linguistics in Everyday Life

What nearly all languages have in common, whether you speak or sign? 

Gleitman, L. R. (2020). Sentence First, Arguments Afterward: Essays in Language and Learning. Oxford University Press.

During the second semester of 2022-2023, the Language acquisition and processing course involved online and on-site classroom activities with on-site lectures and online forum discussions, and readings. Each class contained a mixture of lectures with in-class activities, partially based on discussion of the papers the students had to read in preparation of each class. Topics we treated in the lectures included questions about the features of the human brain allowing for the existence and re-creation of language and how does the environment contribute to language development in children. We also saw how language can shape our perception and production of a variety of stimuli. In our lectures and in interaction with the students, we drew many insights from current and classical research in several disciplines (e.g., linguistic theory & laboratory linguistics, experimental & developmental psychology, neuropsychology, neuroimaging, computer modeling) to shed light on a few key psycholinguistic issues ranging from phonology to semantics. 

Here is the detailed list of course contents and lectures the students had during the year:

Class 1 : Alex de Carvalho (Université Paris Cité) — February 6th

Introduction: course structure; main features of language; main theories about language development; sub-fields

Class 2 : Valentin Thouzeau  (Ecole normale supérieure) — February 13th

Language evolution and the evolution of language

Comparison with other species, evolution of humans and why and when language appeared, pidgin and creole, emergent sign languages, language change, experimental studies of language evolution

Class 3 : Sharon Peperkamp (École normale supérieure) —  February 20th

Language typology & cognitive biases

Class 4 : Sharon Peperkamp (École normale supérieure) —  February 27th

Language-specific speech perception

Class 5 : Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — March 13th

Word Learning: linguistic, perceptual & memory constraints on word learning across development

Class 6 : Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — March 20th

Understanding and producing words (adults): Classic models and bilingualism.

Class 7 : Alex de Carvalho (Université de Paris) — March 27th

Acquisition of syntax

Class 8 :  Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — April 3rd

Second language acquisition

Class 9 : Alex de Carvalho (Université Paris Cité) - April 17th

The relationship between oral language acquisition and reading readiness and academic success

Class 10 : Alejandrina Cristia (École normale supérieure) —  April 24th

Interactions across linguistic levels and beyond; bottom-up, top-down, and mixed models of language.

Class 11 : Maria Giavazzi  (École normale supérieure) — May 15th

Using linguistic theory to understand language impairment: the example of phonological deficits 

Class 12 : Felipe Pegado (Université Paris Cité) — May 22nd

Reading and writing - in the brain, different writing systems and their effect on cognitive and linguistic processing and development

Publications

Full references:

• Brent, M. R., & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00122-6
• Buchwald, A. (2014). Phonetic processing. The Oxford handbook of language production, 245-258.
• Buchwald, A. B., Rapp, B., & Stone, M. (2007). Insertion of discrete phonological units: An articulatory and acoustic investigation of aphasic speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 910-948.
• Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296.
• Christiansen, M. H., Chater, N., & Reali, F. (2009). The biological and cultural foundations of language. Communicative and Integrative Biology, 2(3), 221–222.
• Culbertson, Jennifer. 2012. “Typological Universals as Reflections of Biased Learning: Evidence from Artificial Language Learning.” Linguistics and Language Compass 6 (5): 310–329. doi:10.1002/lnc3.338.
• de Carvalho, A., He, A. X., Lidz, J., & Christophe, A. (2019). Prosody and Function Words Cue the Acquisition of Word Meanings in 18-Month-Old Infants. Psychological Science,  30(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618814131
• Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., de Menezes, R. F., Müller, J. L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and second language distance regardless of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 133.         
• Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2015). Illiterate to literate: behavioural and cerebral changes induced by reading acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 234-244.
• Fedzechkina, Maryia, T. Florian Jaeger, and Elissa L. Newport. 2012. “Language Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (44): 17897–17902.
• Gutman, A., Dautriche, I., Crabbé, B., & Christophe, A. (2015). Bootstrapping the syntactic bootstrapper: probabilistic labeling of prosodic phrases. Language Acquisition, 22(3), 285-309.
• Golinkoff, R. M., Hoff, E., Rowe, M. L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Language Matters: Denying the Existence of the 30-Million-Word Gap Has Serious Consequences. Child Development, 90(3), 985–992.
• Hassinger-Das, B., Toub, T. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). A matter of principle: Applying language science to the classroom and beyond. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000085
• Heinz, J., & Idsardi, W. (2011). Sentence and word complexity. Science, 333(6040), 295-297.
• Kirby, S. (2001). Spontaneous evolution of linguistic Structure. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 102–110.
• Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one, 5(1), e8559.
• Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The Influence of Native-Language Phonology on Lexical Access: Exemplar-Based Versus Abstract Lexical Entries. Psychological Science, 12(6), 445–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00383
• Ramus, F., Marshall, C. R., Rosen, S., & Van Der Lely, H. K. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136(2), 630-645.
• Rugg (1990). Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high- and low-frequency words. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 367-379.
• Sanders, L. D., Neville, H. J., & Woldorff, M. G. (2002). Speech Segmentation by Native and Non-Native Speakers: The Use of Lexical, Syntactic, and Stress-Pattern Cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45(3), 519-530.
• Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., … Peperkamp, S. (2009). Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science, 12(6), 914–919.
• Tsuji, S., Cristia, A., & Dupoux, E. (2021). SCALa: A blueprint for computational models of language acquisition in social context. Cognition, 213(April), 104779.
• Wittgenstein, L. (2010). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.‏

• Séminaires de tronc commun – Sciences cognitives – M1/S2-M2/S4
  Suivi et validation – semestriel hebdomadaire = 6 ECTS
  MCC – contrôle continu, fiche de lecture

Contacts additionnels

cogmaster@psl.eu

Informations pratiques

Classes will take place in person @ENS (29, rue d'Ulm) Salle T. Ribot

Responsable UE: Alex de Carvalho

E-mail: alex.de-carvalho@u-paris.fr

Office: 6th floor at the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l'Éducation de l’Enfant - LaPsyDÉ, La Sorbonne - Université de Paris/CNRS

46 rue des Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris

 

TA: Maureen de Seyssel

E-mail: maureen.deseyssel@gmail.com

Office: Centre des Sciences des Données (CSD), 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris 

Direction de travaux des étudiants

Assessments - Course Requirements and Grading

You will be evaluated in three ways.

1. Online Forum 

a1) Participation (35% of the final grade). Each week, you should post one or more helpful and/or thought-generating comment, question, or answer bearing on the reading for that week on the online forum corresponding to that week on our Moodle webpage (section “Class Participation - Readings Forum”). Your participation can be a clarification question/answer (if there is something you did not understand, or you are answering someone who asked a clarification question); or it can bear on one of the areas that will be used to evaluate your article commentary (see item B below: research question, lit review, key term, methodology, claim, conclusions). Please use tags to indicate which it is. Your text should be maximally 250 words long - any extra words will not be read. It should be submitted by 23:59 on the Friday before the class. Grading only takes into account the first comment posted by you, but you are welcome to make more than one comment. There is a maximum of 2 points per class awarded (0=no participation or off-topic ; 1=satisfactory participation ; 2= good comment) for all classes except the very first one, and the one for which you are moderator (see next item).

a2) Moderation (10% of the final grade). For one class out of the 11 that have a forum, you will be in charge of systematizing the forum participation. Read comments and identify salient themes and/or questions that should be brought up in class, then post this as the final intervention in the corresponding forum section (“Moderation Comments” on Moodle). You must do this between Saturday at 00:00 and Sunday 23:59, so that the instructor has time to read your summary on Monday morning. When you are the moderator, you do not need to post a regular comment. If you are two moderators on the same week, post only one shared comment. The schedule of moderations for the entire semester will be fixed at the beginning of the semester (week of Feb 1st). It is now available here (link also accessible from Moodle).

B) Article commentary (50% of the grade). Imagine that you are a referee engaged in a peer-reviewed process for a generalist scientific journal. As a reviewer, your task is to evaluate an article following the 8 guiding criteria below. All criteria should be mentioned in your commentary. Each should be addressed by stating to what extent the manuscript meets it, and if not, what modifications or additions would be desirable. The text should be maximally 2000 words long (excluding bibliography, if any is cited), written in English or French. It is mandatory to write an approximate word count on the first page, and include a bibliography (using APA6 standards) on a separate page. 

You and the instructors will select one article (from this list) based on your expertise and interests.

Guidelines for article commentary:

1. Research question: Has a research question been posed explicitly? (Yes or no.) If so, what is it according to the authors? If not, what do you think the research question should be, given the contents of the paper? Please bear in mind that a question is not the same as a theory or a hypothesis.

2. Lit review: Is the literature review representative of diverse theoretical approaches to the research question? (Yes or no.) If yes, how? If not, what is it missing? 

3. Key term (paper): Provide at least one example of a key concept or theoretical approach that has been defined and one that has not been defined. If you cannot find an example because they have all been defined or not defined, argument this clearly.

4. Key term (class): Think back to the key linguistic and/or cognitive terms discussed in class; which one would be most relevant to this paper? Have the authors defined it? If not, what is the definition underlying their work? In either case, give a rationale of how a different definition would change their approach. 

5. Methodology: Describe the methodology used. In what ways is this methodology, in principle, an appropriate or inappropriate methodology to answer the main research question?

6. Claim: Give one example of a claim made by the authors. A claim is a statement for which there is no objective basis, and can be thus as opposed to a conclusion, which is defined as a statement  that is directly supported by the data/arguments. Do the authors present that claim as such (or do they confuse claims and conclusions)? 

7. Conclusions: Bearing in mind the research question stated in #1, summarize briefly the conclusions drawn by the authors. In what ways do the data and/or the arguments conceptually support or not these conclusions? 

8. Other comments: Draw on your own strengths to add something special to your review! Some examples are:

a) Commenting on the soundness of the experiments, statistics, and other analyses (including conceptual arguments).

b) OR: Providing a convincing argument whereby changing a key parameter of the methodology could lead to results opposite to those found.

c) OR: Name something missing from the literature review and explain how adding this piece of information would have affected the paper.

d) OR: anything else!

Choose one comment and develop it. In the case of multiple comments, only the first one will be graded.

C) In class participation (5% of the grade). Your in-class participation helps us evaluate your overall engagement with the course. There are many ways to participate even when the class is virtual, either by directly asking questions or using the online chat/forum. Your participation can be in English or in French. There is a maximum of 1 point per class awarded (0=no participation ; 1= participated).

3c. Textbook and readings

We will read primary scientific literature. See bibliography at the end, and course schedule below. It is mandatory to read all of the week's readings. The readings are all available on Moodle (see “Readings” section).

Réception des candidats

-

Pré-requis

There are no necessary pre-requisites. The following readings/viewings, however, should inspire some questions (provided in largely historical order):

Classics in the History of Psychology: Remarks on the Seat of the Faculty of Articulated Language, Following an Observation of Aphemia (Loss of Speech) by Mr. Paul Broca (1861)

Pinker, S. (1995).  Language acquisition.  In L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science:  Language. MIT Press. 

TedTalk - Susan Savage-Rumbaugh: The gentle genius of bonobos

Linguistics in Everyday Life

What nearly all languages have in common, whether you speak or sign? 

Gleitman, L. R. (2020). Sentence First, Arguments Afterward: Essays in Language and Learning. Oxford University Press.

• Institut Jean-Nicod
  29 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris
  Salle Ribot
  2nd semestre / hebdomadaire, lundi 14:00-17:00
  du 30 janvier 2023 au 15 mai 2023
  Nombre de séances : 12

During the second semester of 2022-2023, the Language acquisition and processing course involved online and on-site classroom activities with on-site lectures and online forum discussions, and readings. Each class contained a mixture of lectures with in-class activities, partially based on discussion of the papers the students had to read in preparation of each class. Topics we treated in the lectures included questions about the features of the human brain allowing for the existence and re-creation of language and how does the environment contribute to language development in children. We also saw how language can shape our perception and production of a variety of stimuli. In our lectures and in interaction with the students, we drew many insights from current and classical research in several disciplines (e.g., linguistic theory & laboratory linguistics, experimental & developmental psychology, neuropsychology, neuroimaging, computer modeling) to shed light on a few key psycholinguistic issues ranging from phonology to semantics. 

Here is the detailed list of course contents and lectures the students had during the year:

Class 1 : Alex de Carvalho (Université Paris Cité) — February 6th

Introduction: course structure; main features of language; main theories about language development; sub-fields

Class 2 : Valentin Thouzeau  (Ecole normale supérieure) — February 13th

Language evolution and the evolution of language

Comparison with other species, evolution of humans and why and when language appeared, pidgin and creole, emergent sign languages, language change, experimental studies of language evolution

Class 3 : Sharon Peperkamp (École normale supérieure) —  February 20th

Language typology & cognitive biases

Class 4 : Sharon Peperkamp (École normale supérieure) —  February 27th

Language-specific speech perception

Class 5 : Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — March 13th

Word Learning: linguistic, perceptual & memory constraints on word learning across development

Class 6 : Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — March 20th

Understanding and producing words (adults): Classic models and bilingualism.

Class 7 : Alex de Carvalho (Université de Paris) — March 27th

Acquisition of syntax

Class 8 :  Clarissa Montgomery (Université Paris Cité) — April 3rd

Second language acquisition

Class 9 : Alex de Carvalho (Université Paris Cité) - April 17th

The relationship between oral language acquisition and reading readiness and academic success

Class 10 : Alejandrina Cristia (École normale supérieure) —  April 24th

Interactions across linguistic levels and beyond; bottom-up, top-down, and mixed models of language.

Class 11 : Maria Giavazzi  (École normale supérieure) — May 15th

Using linguistic theory to understand language impairment: the example of phonological deficits 

Class 12 : Felipe Pegado (Université Paris Cité) — May 22nd

Reading and writing - in the brain, different writing systems and their effect on cognitive and linguistic processing and development

Publications

Full references:

• Brent, M. R., & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00122-6
• Buchwald, A. (2014). Phonetic processing. The Oxford handbook of language production, 245-258.
• Buchwald, A. B., Rapp, B., & Stone, M. (2007). Insertion of discrete phonological units: An articulatory and acoustic investigation of aphasic speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 910-948.
• Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296.
• Christiansen, M. H., Chater, N., & Reali, F. (2009). The biological and cultural foundations of language. Communicative and Integrative Biology, 2(3), 221–222.
• Culbertson, Jennifer. 2012. “Typological Universals as Reflections of Biased Learning: Evidence from Artificial Language Learning.” Linguistics and Language Compass 6 (5): 310–329. doi:10.1002/lnc3.338.
• de Carvalho, A., He, A. X., Lidz, J., & Christophe, A. (2019). Prosody and Function Words Cue the Acquisition of Word Meanings in 18-Month-Old Infants. Psychological Science,  30(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618814131
• Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., de Menezes, R. F., Müller, J. L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and second language distance regardless of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 133.         
• Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2015). Illiterate to literate: behavioural and cerebral changes induced by reading acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 234-244.
• Fedzechkina, Maryia, T. Florian Jaeger, and Elissa L. Newport. 2012. “Language Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (44): 17897–17902.
• Gutman, A., Dautriche, I., Crabbé, B., & Christophe, A. (2015). Bootstrapping the syntactic bootstrapper: probabilistic labeling of prosodic phrases. Language Acquisition, 22(3), 285-309.
• Golinkoff, R. M., Hoff, E., Rowe, M. L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Language Matters: Denying the Existence of the 30-Million-Word Gap Has Serious Consequences. Child Development, 90(3), 985–992.
• Hassinger-Das, B., Toub, T. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). A matter of principle: Applying language science to the classroom and beyond. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000085
• Heinz, J., & Idsardi, W. (2011). Sentence and word complexity. Science, 333(6040), 295-297.
• Kirby, S. (2001). Spontaneous evolution of linguistic Structure. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 102–110.
• Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one, 5(1), e8559.
• Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The Influence of Native-Language Phonology on Lexical Access: Exemplar-Based Versus Abstract Lexical Entries. Psychological Science, 12(6), 445–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00383
• Ramus, F., Marshall, C. R., Rosen, S., & Van Der Lely, H. K. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136(2), 630-645.
• Rugg (1990). Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high- and low-frequency words. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 367-379.
• Sanders, L. D., Neville, H. J., & Woldorff, M. G. (2002). Speech Segmentation by Native and Non-Native Speakers: The Use of Lexical, Syntactic, and Stress-Pattern Cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45(3), 519-530.
• Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., … Peperkamp, S. (2009). Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science, 12(6), 914–919.
• Tsuji, S., Cristia, A., & Dupoux, E. (2021). SCALa: A blueprint for computational models of language acquisition in social context. Cognition, 213(April), 104779.
• Wittgenstein, L. (2010). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.‏