Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Simple Semantics in the Process of Artificial Grammar Learning

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of semantic information on artificial grammar learning (AGL). Recursive grammars of different complexity levels (regular language, mirror language, copy language) were investigated in a series of AGL experiments. In the with-semantics condition, participants acquired semantic information prior to the AGL experiment; in the without-semantics control condition, participants did not receive semantic information. It was hypothesized that semantics would generally facilitate grammar acquisition and that the learning benefit in the with-semantics conditions would increase with increasing grammar complexity. Experiment 1 showed learning effects for all grammars but no performance difference between conditions. Experiment 2 replicated the absence of a semantic benefit for all grammars even though semantic information was more prominent during grammar acquisition as compared to Experiment 1. Thus, we did not find evidence for the idea that semantics facilitates grammar acquisition, which seems to support the view of an independent syntactic processing component.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. With the term “phrase” we refer to what Poletiek and Lai (2012) labeled “AB pair” or “sequence with zero level of embedding”.

References

  • Bahlmann, J., Schubotz, R. I., & Friederici, A. D. (2008). Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca’s area. NeuroImage, 42(2), 525–534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. H., Christiansen, M. H., & Petersson, K. M. (2011). Learning recursion: Multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics, 5(1–2), 010–035.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. H., Monaghan, P., Knecht, S., & Zwitserlood, P. (2008). Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures. Cognition, 107(2), 763–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. H., Petersson, K. M., Geukes, S., Zwitserlood, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Processing multiple non-adjacent dependencies: Evidence from sequence learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1598), 2065–2076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1), 71–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fedor, A., Varga, M., & Szathmáry, E. (2012). Semantics boosts syntax in artificial grammar learning tasks with recursion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 776–782.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science, 303(5656), 377–380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Bahlmann, J., Heim, S., Schubotz, R. I., & Anwander, A. (2006). The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(7), 2458–2463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006). Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature, 440(7088), 1204–1207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 178–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5598), 1569–1579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hautus, M. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd\(\prime \). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 27(1), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochmann, J.-R., Azadpour, M., & Mehler, J. (2008). Do humans really learn AnBn artificial grammars from exemplars? Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1021–1036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, G., & Rogers, J. (2012). Formal language theory: Refining the Chomsky hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1598), 1956–1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. K., Shanker, K. V., & Weir, D. (1991). The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In P. Sekks, S. Shieber & T. Wasow (Eds.), Processing of Linguistic Strucutre. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

  • Lai, J., & Poletiek, F. H. (2011). The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of center-embedded hierarchical structures. Cognition, 118(2), 265–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moeser, S. D. (1977). Semantics and miniature artificial languages. In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 227–250). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeser, S. D., & Bregman, A. S. (1972). The role of reference in the acquisition of a miniature artificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 759–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeser, S. D., & Bregman, A. S. (1973). Imagery and language acquisition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (1981). The role of constituent structure in the induction of an artificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1987). Structural packaging in the input to language learning: Contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4), 498–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Facilitating the acquisition of syntax with cross-sentential cues to phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 360–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öttl, B., Jäger, G., & Kaup, B. (2015). Does formal complexity reflect cognitive complexity? Investigating aspects of the Chomsky hierarchy in an artificial language learning study. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0123059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Rey, A. (2005). Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(2), 307–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poletiek, F. H., & Lai, J. (2012). How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: A statistical account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1598), 2046–2054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saffran, J., Hauser, M., Seibel, R., Kapfhamer, J., Tsao, F., & Cushman, F. (2008). Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Cognition, 107(2), 479–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, I. (1977). Miniature artificial languages as research tools. In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 251–260). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeide, M. A., Brauer, J., & Friederici, A. D. (2014). Syntax gradually segregates from semantics in the developing brain. NeuroImage, 100, 106–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uddén, J., Ingvar, M., Hagoort, P., & Petersson, K. M. (2012). Implicit acquisition of grammars with crossed and nested non-adjacent dependencies: Investigating the push-down stack model. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1078–1101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, E., Christiansen, M. H., & Misyak, J. B. (2012). Statistical learning of probabilistic nonadjacent dependencies by multiple-cue integration. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 507–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, E., & Poletiek, F. (2015). Learning simple and complex artificial grammars in the presence of a semantic reference field: Effects on performance and awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00158.

  • Van Heijningen, C. A. A., De Visser, J., Zuidema, W., & Ten Cate, C. (2009). Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(48), 20538–20543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This data was part of the Ph.D. thesis of the first author. While conducting this research the first author received support from the German National Academic Foundation. In addition, this research was supported by the workshop Artificial Grammar Learning: Learnability, Complexity and Meaning funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the SFB 833, a grant from the German Research Foundation awarded to Barbara Kaup (SFB 833, Project B4) as well as the ERC Advanced Grant 324246 Language Evolution: The Empirical Turn to Gerhard Jäger.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Schleichstraße 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Birgit Öttl & Barbara Kaup

  2. Department of Linguistics, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 19, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Gerhard Jäger

Authors
  1. Birgit Öttl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerhard Jäger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Kaup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birgit Öttl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

In all experiments of the reported study participants signed an informed consent form prior to participating in the experiment. They were informed that they were free to terminate the experiment at any time without facing disadvantages prior to the experiment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Öttl, B., Jäger, G. & Kaup, B. The Role of Simple Semantics in the Process of Artificial Grammar Learning. J Psycholinguist Res 46, 1285–1308 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9494-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9494-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation