Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 329–342 | Cite as

Aural Pattern Recognition Experiments and the Subregular Hierarchy

Article

Abstract

We explore the formal foundations of recent studies comparing aural pattern recognition capabilities of populations of human and non-human animals. To date, these experiments have focused on the boundary between the Regular and Context-Free stringsets. We argue that experiments directed at distinguishing capabilities with respect to the Subregular Hierarchy, which subdivides the class of Regular stringsets, are likely to provide better evidence about the distinctions between the cognitive mechanisms of humans and those of other species. Moreover, the classes of the Subregular Hierarchy have the advantage of fully abstract descriptive (model-theoretic) characterizations in addition to characterizations in more familiar grammar- and automata-theoretic terms. Because the descriptive characterizations make no assumptions about implementation, they provide a sound basis for drawing conclusions about potential cognitive mechanisms from the experimental results. We review the Subregular Hierarchy and provide a concrete set of principles for the design and interpretation of these experiments.

Keywords

Sub-regular languages Local languages Artificial grammar learning Cognitive complexity Aural pattern recognition Mathematics of language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benedikt, M., & Segoufin, L. (2005). Regular tree languages definable in FO. In V. Diekert & B. Durand (Eds.), 22nd annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS 2005), lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3404, pp. 327–339).Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan J. W. (1978) Evidence for a theory of unbounded transformations. Linguistic Analysis 2: 353–393Google Scholar
  3. Büchi J. R. (1960) Week second-order arithmetic and finite automata. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 6: 66–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1962). Context-free grammars and pushdown storage. Quarterly Progress Report 65, MIT Res. Lab. Elect.Google Scholar
  5. Elgot C. C. (1961) Decision problems of finite automata and related arithmetics. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 98: 21–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitch W. T., Hauser M. D. (2004) Computational constraints on syntactic processing in nonhuman primates. Science 303: 377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. García P., Ruiz J. (1990) Inference of k-testable languages in the strict sense and applications to syntactic pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9: 920–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gentner T. Q., Fenn K. M., Margoliash D., Nusbaum H. C. (2006) Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440: 1204–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauser M. D., Chomsky N., Fitch W. T. (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 298: 1569–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinz, J. (2007). Inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  11. Huybregts R. (1984) The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase structure grammars. In: Haan G. J., de Trommelen M., Zonneveld W. (eds) Van Periferie Naar Kern. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp 81–99Google Scholar
  12. Lautemann C., Schwentick T., Théien D. (1994) Logics for context-free languages. In: Pacholski L., Tiuryn J. (eds) Computer science logic. Kazimierz, Poland, pp 203–216Google Scholar
  13. McNaughton R., Papert S. (1971) Counter-free automata. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Medvedev Y. T. (1964) On the class of events representable in a finite automaton. In: Moore E. F. (eds) Computer science logic. Sequential Machines—Selected Papers, Addison-Wesley, pp 215–227 originally in Russian in Avtomaty (1956), pp. 385–401Google Scholar
  15. Perruchet P., Rey A. (2005) Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12: 307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shieber S. (1985) Evidence against the context-freeness of human language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Straubing H. (1994) Finite automata, formal logic and circuit complexity. Birkhäuser, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomas W. (1982) Classifying regular events in symbolic logic. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences 25: 360–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceEarlham CollegeRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Linguistics and English LanguageUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations