Simulating Language 2015, pre-reading 13 questions Question Title * 1. In their introduction Kirby et al talk about how language universals are typically interpreted, and in particular how they are taken relate to innate constraints on language learning. Which of the following statements captures the "standard" view on universals and innate constraints? The fact that language universals don't exist shows that innate constraints on language learning don't exist. The fact that language universals exist shows that there must be strong constraints on language learning, otherwise why would all languages share some features? The fact that language universals exist shows that there must be weak constraints on language learning, otherwise why would all languages share some features? The fact that language universals exist shows that language learning must be unconstrained, otherwise why would all languages share some features? Question Title * 2. Imagine a model where there are two types of language - let's call them type A and type B. In a Bayesian model of language learning, how would you encode a strong innate constraint on language learning, favouring languages of type A over type B? In the likelihood function. In the denominator of Bayes' Rule. In the prior, p(type-A) being a little above 0.5. In the prior, p(type-B) being a little above 0.5. In the prior, p(type-A) being close to 1. In the prior, p(type-B) being close to 1. Question Title * 3. In the same model, how would you encode a weak innate constraint on language learning, favouring languages of type A over type B? In the likelihood function. In the denominator of Bayes' Rule. In the prior, p(type-A) being a little above 0.5. In the prior, p(type-B) being a little above 0.5. In the prior, p(type-A) being close to 1. In the prior, p(type-B) being close to 1. Question Title * 4. Kirby et al use a prior favoring regularity. Under their model, which of the following orderings of prior probability of the languages aaaa, aabb and abcd is correct? p(aaaa) > p(aabb) > p(abcd) p(abcd) > p(aabb) > p(aaaa) p(aabb) > p(aaaa) > p(abcd) p(aabb) = p(abcd) = p(aaaa) None of the above - it depends on the parameter alpha Question Title * 5. Returning to Question 1: how do the results reported by Kirby et al. change the link between language universals and innate constraints? Question Title * 6. Use this comment box to tell me anything else you want me to know about this reading, the associated lecture, or the course in general. Done