Skip to content
← Back to explorer

What Exactly do Children Receive in Language Acquisition? A Case Study on CHILDES with Automated Detection of Filler-Gap Dependencies

Zhenghao Herbert Zhou, William Dai, Maya Viswanathan, Simon Charlow, R. Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 2, 2026, 5:03 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 8, 2026, 5:44 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices. Unfortunately, the relevant input is difficult to quantify at scale with fine granularity, making this question difficult to resolve. We present a system that identifies three core filler-gap constructions in spoken English corpora -- matrix wh-questions, embedded wh-questions, and relative clauses -- and further identifies the extraction site (i.e., subject vs. object vs. adjunct). Our approach combines constituency and dependency parsing, leveraging their complementary strengths for construction classification and extraction site identification. We validate the system on human-annotated data and find that it scores well across most categories. Applying the system to 57 English CHILDES corpora, we are able to characterize children's filler-gap input and their filler-gap production trajectories over the course of development, including construction-specific frequencies and extraction-site asymmetries. The resulting fine-grained labels enable future work in both acquisition and computational studies, which we demonstrate with a case study using filtered corpus training with language models.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Children's acquisition of filler-gap dependencies has been argued by some to depend on innate grammatical knowledge, while others suggest that the distributional evidence available in child-directed speech suffices.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.15
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We present a system that identifies three core filler-gap constructions in spoken English corpora -- matrix wh-questions, embedded wh-questions, and relative clauses -- and further identifies the extraction site (i.e., subject vs. HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 8, 2026, 5:44 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We present a system that identifies three core filler-gap constructions in spoken English corpora -- matrix wh-questions, embedded wh-questions, and relative clauses -- and…
  • We validate the system on human-annotated data and find that it scores well across most categories.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present a system that identifies three core filler-gap constructions in spoken English corpora -- matrix wh-questions, embedded wh-questions, and relative clauses -- and further identifies the extraction site (i.e., subject vs.
  • We validate the system on human-annotated data and find that it scores well across most categories.
  • The resulting fine-grained labels enable future work in both acquisition and computational studies, which we demonstrate with a case study using filtered corpus training with language models.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We validate the system on human-annotated data and find that it scores well across most categories.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote