The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of center-embedded hierarchical structures

Cognition

Volumn 118, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 265-273

  Lai, Jun ^a   Poletiek, Fenna H ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Artificial grammar learning; Center embedding; Hierarchical structures; Starting small

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSORY STIMULATION;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE;

EID: 78651101397     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bach E., Brown C., Marslen-Wilson W. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1986, 249:262.
2. Bahlmann, J., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). FMRI investigation of the processing of simple linear and embedded hierarchical structures: An artificial grammar task. Annual meeting supplement. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 126.
3. Bahlmann J., Schubotz R.I., Friederici A.D. Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area. NeuroImage 2008, 42:525-534.
4. Bellinger D. Consistency in the pattern of change in mothers' speech: Some discriminant analyses. Journal of Child Language 1980, 7:469-487.
5. Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. Luce et al., (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 286-287). New York: John Wiley.
6. Christiansen, M. H., & Dale, R. A. C. (2001). Integrating distributional, prosodic and phonological information in a connectionist model of language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 220-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Conway C.M., Christiansen M.H. Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:24-39.
8. Conway, C. M., Ellefson, M. R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). When less is less and when less is more: Starting small with staged input. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 270-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Corballis M.C. Recursion, language, and starlings. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:697-704.
10. De Vries M.H., Monaghan P., Knecht S., Zwitserlood P. Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures. Cognition 2008, 107:763-774.
11. Elman J.L. Incremental learning, or the importance of starting small. Technical report, 9101 1991, Center for Research in Language, University of California at San Diego.
12. Elman J.L. Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 1993, 48:71-99.
13. Fitch W.T., Hauser M.D. Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 2004, 303:377-380.
14. Fletcher J., Maybery M.T., Bennett S. Implicit learning differences: A question of development level?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2000, 26:246-252.
15. Friederici A.D., Bahlmann J., Heim S., Schubotz R.I., Anwander A. The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2006, 103:2458-2463.
16. Garnica O.K. Some prosodic and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. Talking to children: Language input and acquisition 1977, 63-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. C.E. Snow, C.A. Ferguson (Eds.).
17. Gentner T.Q., Fenn K.M., Margoliash D., Nusbaum H.C. Recuisive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 2006, 440:1204-1207.
18. Gómez R., Maye J. The developmental trajectory of nonadjacent dependency learning. Infancy 2005, 7(2):183-206.
19. Hauser M.D., Chomsky N., Fitch W.T. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 2002, 298:1569-1579.
20. Hudson R. The difficulty of (so-called) self-embedded structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1996, 8:283-314.
21. Kersten A.W., Earles J.L. Less really is more for adults learning a miniature artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 44:25-273.
22. Krueger K.A., Dayan P. Flexible shaping: How learning in small steps helps. Cognition 2009, 110:380-394.
23. Ludden, D., & Gupta, P. (2000). Zen in the art of language acquisition: Statistical learning and the less is more hypotheses. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 812-817). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Makuuchi M., Bahlmann J., Anwander A., Friederici A.D. Segregating the core computational faculty of human language from working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 2009, 106:8362-8367.
25. McDonald J.L., Plauche M. Single and correlated cues in an artificial language learning paradigm. Language and Speech 1995, 38(3):223-236.
26. Mintz T. Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:678-686.
27. Mintz T. Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 2003, 90:91-117.
28. Newmeyer F. Extensions and implications of linguistic theory: An overview. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey 2. Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications 1988, 1-14. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. F. Newmeyer (Ed.).
29. Newport E.L. Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: Studies of the acquisition of American Sign Language. Language Sciences 1988, 10:147-172.
30. Newport E.L. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 1990, 14:11-28.
31. Onnis, L., Monaghan, P., Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2004). Variability is the spice of learning, and a crucial ingredient for detecting and generalizing in nonadjacent dependencies. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1047-1052). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Perruchet P., Rey A. Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from non-human primates?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2005, 12(2):307-313.
33. Pine J.M. The language of primary caregivers. Input and interaction in language acquisition 1994, 109-149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. C. Gallaway, B.J. Richards (Eds.).
34. Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1990). From rote learning to system building. Center for Research in Language. TR 9020. San Diego: University of California.
35. Poletiek F.H. Learning recursion in an artificial grammar learning task. Acta Psychologica 2002, 111:323-335.
36. Poletiek, F. H., & Chater, N. (2006). Grammar induction benefits from representative sampling. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1968-1973). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Poletiek, F. H., Chater, N., & Van den Bos, E. (submitted for publication). The influence of stimulus frequencies in artificial grammar learning. Evidence for deep and surface statistical learning.
38. Rohde D.L.T., Plaut D.C. Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small?. Cognition 1999, 72:67-109.
39. Tomasello M. Constructing a language: A usage based theory of language acquisition 2003, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Vasishth, S. (2001). An empirical evaluation of sentence processing models: Center embeddings in Hindi. In M. Daniels, D. Dowty, A. Feldman, & V. Metcalf (Eds.), OSUWPL (Vol. 56, pp. 159-181). Ohio State University.