Advertisement

Conclusions

  • Yu-Leng LinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics book series (FiCL, volume 8)

Abstract

In conclusion, this monograph contributes to three important issues in artificial grammar learning. First, phonological studies using an artificial grammar paradigm are an area of increasing research interest. However, testing is most often done with English speakers in this kind of research. This study expends populations to Taiwan Southern Min and Quebec French. Second, artificial grammar studies often draw conclusion from pooled data, without taking into account individual learning strategies. This research carefully examines the individual learner’s performance and categorizes participants into different learner types. These tell us more about the relationship between learnability and phonological patterning and help us rule out a possibility of pure familiarity effect. Finally, this research lays out design limitations in artificial grammar learning experiments and presents ways to refine the design, providing a guide for linguists to improve the design.

References

  1. Chang, Yung-Hsiang Shawn. 2008. An acoustic and perceptual study of vowel nasality in Taiwanese. USTWPL 4: 17–26. Urbana-Champaign: Department of Linguistics University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Desmeules-Trudel, Félix. (2015). Propriétés aérodynamiques et comparaison des voyelles nasales et potentiellement nasalisées en français québécois. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
  3. Dresher, Elan B. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ettlinger, Marc, Kara Morgan-Short, Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg, and Patrick C. M. Wong. 2015. The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 1–26.Google Scholar
  5. Finley, Sara. 2011. The privileged status of locality in consonant harmony. Journal of Memory and Language 65: 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gómez, Rebecca L., Richard R. Bootzin, and Lynn Nadel. 2006. Naps promote abstraction in language-learning infants. Psychological Science 17 (8): 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25 (1): 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moreton, Elliott, and Joe Pater. 2012a. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compact, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Moreton, Elliott, and Joe Pater. 2012b. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compact, 702–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morgan-Short, Kara, Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg, Katherine Brill-Schuetz, Helen Carpenter, and Patrick C.M. Wong. 2014. Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (1): 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Two case studies in phonological universals: A view from artificial grammars. Biolinguistics 4: 217–232.Google Scholar
  12. Peperkamp, Sharon, and Alexander Martin. 2016. Sleep-dependent consolidation in the learning of natural vs. unnatural phonological rules. In The 15th Conference on Laboratory Phonology (LabPhon15), July 13–1, 2016, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  13. Seidl, Amanda, and Eugene Buckley. 2005. On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1 (3 & 4): 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. St. Clair, Michelle C., and Padraic Monaghan. 2008. Language abstraction: Consolidation of language structure during sleep. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bradley C. Love, Kateri McRae, and Vladimir M. Sloutsky, 727–732. Austin Texas: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  15. Wagner, Ullrich, Stephen Gais, Hlide Haider, Rolf Verleger, and Jan Born. 2004. Sleep inspires insight. Nature 427: 352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Walker, Douglas C. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Languages and LiteraturesFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations