Testing the limits of non-adjacent dependency learning: Statistical segmentation and generalization across domains

Achieving linguistic proficiency requires identifying words from speech, and discovering the constraints that govern the way those words are used. In a recent study of non-adjacent dependency learning, Frost and Monaghan (2016) demonstrated that learners may perform these tasks together, using similar statistical processes — contrary to prior suggestions. However, in their study, non-adjacent dependencies were marked by phonological cues (plosive- continuant-plosive structure), which may have influenced learning. Here, we test the necessity of these cues by comparing learning across three conditions; fixed phonology, which contains these cues, varied phonology, which omits them, and shapes, which uses visual shape sequences to assess the generality of statistical processing for these tasks. Participants segmented the sequences and generalized the structure in both auditory conditions, but learning was best when phonological cues were present. Learning was around chance on both tasks for the visual shapes group, indicating statistical processing may critically differ across domains.

[1]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Mark My Words: High Frequency Marker Words Impact Early Stages of Language Learning , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Nick Chater,et al.  Variability is the spice of learning, and a crucial ingredient for detecting and generalizing in nonadjacent dependencies , 2004 .

[3]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key , 2010, Cognition.

[4]  N. Chater,et al.  Probabilistic and distributional approaches to language acquisition , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  H Child,et al.  The festival. , 1978, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[6]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Domain-General Mechanisms for Speech Segmentation: The Role of Duration Information in Language Learning , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[8]  R. Gómez,et al.  Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge , 1999, Cognition.

[9]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Bridging artificial and natural language learning: Comparing processing- and reflection-based measures of learning , 2018, CogSci.

[10]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[11]  E. Newport,et al.  Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Robert M. Gonyea,et al.  Learning at a Distance : , 2009 .

[13]  Joanne Arciuli,et al.  Linguistic entrenchment: Prior knowledge impacts statistical learning performance , 2018, Cognition.

[14]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  R. Frost,et al.  Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. , 2015, Journal of memory and language.

[16]  R. Peereman,et al.  Learning Nonadjacent Dependencies: No Need for Algebraic-like Computations Is It Possible to Learn the Relation between 2 Nonadjacent Events? , 2004 .

[17]  Marina Nespor,et al.  Signal-Driven Computations in Speech Processing , 2002, Science.

[18]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Simultaneous segmentation and generalisation of non-adjacent dependencies from continuous speech , 2016, Cognition.