Rules vs. Statistics in Implicit Learning of Biconditional Grammars

A significant part of everyday learning occurs incidentally — a process typically described as implicit learning. A central issue in this domain and others, such as language acquisition, is the extent to which performance depends on the acquisition and deployment of abstract rules. Shanks and colleagues [22], [11] have suggested (1) that discrimination between grammatical and ungrammatical instances of a biconditional grammar requires the acquisition and use of abstract rules, and (2) that training conditions — in particular whether instructions orient participants to identify the relevant rules or not — strongly influence the extent to which such rules will be learned. In this paper, we show (1) that a Simple Recurrent Network can in fact, under some conditions, learn a biconditional grammar, (2) that training conditions indeed influence learning in simple auto-associators networks and (3) that such networks can likewise learn about biconditional grammars, albeit to a lesser extent than human participants. These findings suggest that mastering biconditional grammars does not require the acquisition of abstract rules to the extent implied by Shanks and colleagues, and that performance on such material may in fact be based, at least in part, on simple associative learning mechanisms.

[1]  Mark S. Seidenberg Do Infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics? , 1999, Science.

[2]  E. Newport,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article INCIDENTAL LANGUAGE LEARNING: Ustening (and Learning) out of the Comer of Your Ear , 2022 .

[3]  Zoltan Dienes,et al.  Connectionist and Memory-Array Models of Artificial Grammar Learning , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Finite State Automata and Simple Recurrent Networks , 1989, Neural Computation.

[5]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect , 1989 .

[6]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[7]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[9]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Implicit Learning , 1993 .

[10]  T Johnstone,et al.  Abstraction Processes in Artificial Grammar Learning , 1997, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Implicit learning: news from the front , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Rules versus statistics in biconditional grammar learning: A simulation based on Shanks et al. (1997) , 2000 .

[13]  A. Reber Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[14]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999 .

[15]  Gerry Altmann,et al.  Mapping across Domains Without Feedback: A Neural Network Model of Transfer of Implicit Knowledge , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  N. Chater,et al.  Transfer in artificial grammar learning : A reevaluation , 1996 .

[17]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Mechanisms of Implicit Learning: Connectionist Models of Sequence Processing , 1993 .

[18]  D. Shanks,et al.  Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Abstractionist and Processing Accounts of Implicit Learning , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Implicit learning from an information processing standpoint , 1997 .

[21]  D. Plaut,et al.  Does generalization in infant learning implicate abstract algebra-like rules? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.