Implicit Acquisition of Grammars With Crossed and Nested Non-Adjacent Dependencies: Investigating the Push-Down Stack Model
Graduate studies at Western
Cognitive Science 36 (6):1078-1101 (2012)
|Abstract||A recent hypothesis in empirical brain research on language is that the fundamental difference between animal and human communication systems is captured by the distinction between finite-state and more complex phrase-structure grammars, such as context-free and context-sensitive grammars. However, the relevance of this distinction for the study of language as a neurobiological system has been questioned and it has been suggested that a more relevant and partly analogous distinction is that between non-adjacent and adjacent dependencies. Online memory resources are central to the processing of non-adjacent dependencies as information has to be maintained across intervening material. One proposal is that an external memory device in the form of a limited push-down stack is used to process non-adjacent dependencies. We tested this hypothesis in an artificial grammar learning paradigm where subjects acquired non-adjacent dependencies implicitly. Generally, we found no qualitative differences between the acquisition of non-adjacent dependencies and adjacent dependencies. This suggests that although the acquisition of non-adjacent dependencies requires more exposure to the acquisition material, it utilizes the same mechanisms used for acquiring adjacent dependencies. We challenge the push-down stack model further by testing its processing predictions for nested and crossed multiple non-adjacent dependencies. The push-down stack model is partly supported by the results, and we suggest that stack-like properties are some among many natural properties characterizing the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms that implement the online memory resources used in language and structured sequence processing|
|Keywords||Nested Non‐adjacent dependencies Implicit learning Artificial grammar learning Crossed|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Evelina Fedorenko, Rebecca Woodbury & Edward Gibson (2013). Direct Evidence of Memory Retrieval as a Source of Difficulty in Non-Local Dependencies in Language. Cognitive Science 37 (2):378-394.
Alastair Butler (2007). Scope Control and Grammatical Dependencies. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):241-264.
Alastair Butler (2011). Semantically Restricted Argument Dependencies. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (1):69-114.
Luis López (2007). Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. Palgrave Macmillian.
Christopher D. Manning, An Effective Two-Stage Model for Exploiting Non-Local Dependencies in Named Entity Recognition.
Sara Finley (2012). Testing the Limits of Long-Distance Learning: Learning Beyond a Three-Segment Window. Cognitive Science 36 (4):740-756.
Anastasia Giannakidou (1999). Affective Dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4):367-421.
Cedric Boeckx (2008). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons From Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Blackwell Pub..
Richard E. Pastore & Edward J. Crawley (1998). Locus Equation: Assumption and Dependencies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):278-279.
Robert C. Richardson (1997). Natural and Artificial Complexity. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):267.
Satish P. Deshpande, Jacob Joseph & Rashmi Prasad (2008). Impact of Managerial Dependencies on Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3):535 - 542.
Added to index2012-03-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,824 of 738,393 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 738,393 )
How can I increase my downloads?