\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{natbib}
\mode<presentation>
\usetheme{Warsaw}
\setbeamercovered{transparent}
%\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.1,0.1,0.7}
\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.51,0.0,0.0} %bordeaux
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

\title[] % (optional, use only with long paper titles)
{On the comprehension-production \\ dilemma in child language \\ Paul Smolensky}

\subtitle[]
{\emph{ in Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 720-731 }}
\author[] % (optional, use only with lots of authors)
{Andreas van Cranenburgh (0440949)}

\institute[] % (optional, but mostly needed)
{Language \& Optimality, University of Amsterdam}

\date[] % (optional)
{\today}

\subject{Talks}
% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
% the following command:

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}

\begin{document}
\section{Title}

%\begin{frame}
% Can't ... resist ...
%\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{tufte}
%\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}


\renewcommand{\emph}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\section{Main talk}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The dilemma \& language acquisition} 
\begin{itemize}
\item Smolensky's \emph{dilemma}: 
	given an idealised competence, why don't children
	behave like idealised language users?
\item Smolensky gives a purely technical solution
	(faithfulness outranked by marknedness),
	because it works in OT, not because of evidence.
\item OT regards \emph{language acquisition} as central, but:
	\begin{itemize}
	\item doesn't account for acquiring \emph{representations}. 
		Eg., each word is associated
		with a unique, abstract representation
	\item requires \emph{innate universals}, which are not backed by evidence (Evans 2009). Even Jakobson typology untenable.
	\item instead of binary constraints, languages appear to use the whole
		spectrum of possibilities
	\item many constraints would be very domain-specific 
		$\rightarrow$ innateness implausible
	\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Suggestions}

\begin{itemize}
\item cognition consists of \emph{recognition} \& \emph{anticipation}
	$\rightarrow$ comprehension \& production
\item comprehension requires only a \emph{discriminative} model: \\
	eg. $p(y|x)$ {\em given} utterance $x$
\item production requires a full \emph{generative} model: \\
	eg. $p(x, y)$, not given $x$ or $y$
\item Also known from psychology: recognition much easier than recall

\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Evidence}

Difficulty hierarchy:

learning forms $<$ learning meanings $<$ linking forms \& meanings

\begin{itemize}
\item pre-verbal infants already generalize in comprehension, \\
    but speaking toddlers show weak or no generalization in production (Naigles 2002)
\item children appear to use an action response heuristic, which leads parents
	to overestimate their comprehension abilities (Shatz 1978)
\item the item-based nature of acquisition (Tomasello 2000):
	\begin{itemize}
	\item toddlers do not inflect nonce-verbs like they inflect the verbs they already know \\
	$\rightarrow$ learning is about concrete experience, not abstract rules
	\item OT/generative theories assume a dual process model: rules \& lexicon,
	\item it is estimated that 60\% of language is idiomatic
	\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\end{document}