Centre-embedded structures are a by-product of associative learning and working memory constraints: Evidence from baboons (Papio Papio)

Cognition

Volumn 123, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 180-184

  Rey, Arnaud ^a   Perruchet, Pierre ^b   Fagot, Joël ^a  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE   (France)

Author keywords

Centre embedded structures; Nonhuman primates; Recursion

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; NONHUMAN; PAPIO PAPIO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; WORKING MEMORY;

ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PAPIO; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84856781293     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bach E., Brown C., Marslen-Wilson W. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1986, 1:249-262.
2. Blaubergs M.S., Braine M.D.S. Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1974, 102:745-748.
3. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures (Mouton, The Hague).
4. Corballis M.C. Recursion, language, and starlings. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:697-704.
5. Christiansen M.H., Chater N. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 1999, 23:157-205.
6. Christiansen M.H., Chater N. Finite models of infinite language: A connectionist approach to recursion. Connectionist psycholinguistics 2001, 138-176. CT: Ablex, Westport. M.H. Christiansen, N. Chater (Eds.).
7. 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.
8. Elman J.L. Distributed representation, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning 1991, 7:195-225.
9. Everett D. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 2005, 46:621-646.
10. Everett D. Do not sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the amazonian jungle 2008, Pantheon Books, New York, NY.
11. Fagot J., Bonté E. Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: Use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free ranging baboons (Papio papio). Behavior, Research, Method 2010, 42:507-516.
12. Fitch W.T., Hauser M.D. Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 2004, 303:377-380.
13. Gentner T.Q., Fenn K.M., Margoliash D., Nusbaum H.C. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by song birds. Nature 2006, 440:1204-1207.
14. 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.
15. King J., Just M.A. Individual différences in syntactic processing: The role of working Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 1991, 30:580-602.
16. Lai J., Poletiek F.H. The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of centre-embedded hierachical structures. Cognition 2011, 118:265-273.
17. Perruchet P., Rey A. Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from non-humans?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2005, 12:307-313.
18. van Heijningen C.A.A., de Visser J., Zuidema W., ten Cate C. Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative récursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 2009, 106:20538-20543.