Skip to main content

Syntactic transfer in artificial grammar learning

Abstract

In an artificial grammar learning (AGL) experiment, participants were trained with instances of one grammatical structure before completing a test phase in which they were required to discriminate grammatical from randomly created strings. Importantly, the underlying structure used to generate test strings was different from that used to generate the training strings. Despite the fact that grammatical training strings were more similar to nongrammatical test strings than they were to grammatical test strings, this manipulation resulted in a positive transfer effect, as compared with controls trained with nongrammatical strings. It is suggested that training with grammatical strings leads to an appreciation of set variance that aids the detection of grammatical test strings in AGL tasks. The analysis presented demonstrates that it is useful to conceptualize test performance in AGL as a form of unsupervised category learning.

References

  • Altmann, G. T. M., Dienes, Z., & Goode, A. (1995). Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 899–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannagan, M. J., Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1986). Distributional expectations and the induction of category structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, C., Wills, A. J., Haslam, S. A., Kay, J., Baron, R., & McNab, F. (2007). Does maintenance of color categories rely on language? Evidence to the contrary from a case of semantic dementia. Brain & Language, 103, 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, A., & Kinder, A. (2006). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: The role of repetition information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 707–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meulemans, T., & Van der Linden, M. (1997). Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1007–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 264–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., Vinter, A., Pacteau, C., & Gallego, J. (2002). The formation of structurally relevant units in artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 485–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M. (2007). Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 227–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M., & Bailey, T. M. (2000). The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 847–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., & Perruchet, P. (2003). The use of control groups in artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redington, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: A reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, D. R., Johnstone, T., & Staggs, L. (1997). Abstraction processes in artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 216–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E. (2008). The case for implicit category learning. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 328–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Beesley.

Additional information

This work was supported by ESRC Grant RES-062-23-1778 awarded to T.B., and EC Framework 6 Project Grant 516542 (NEST) and ESRC Grant RES-000-22-1779 awarded to A.J.W. We are grateful to Chris Berry, David Shanks, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beesley, T., Wills, A.J. & Le Pelley, M.E. Syntactic transfer in artificial grammar learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 122–128 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.122

Keywords

  • Test Phase
  • Letter String
  • Test String
  • Grammatical Structure
  • Artificial Grammar Learning