Implicit Acquisition of Grammars With Crossed and Nested Non-Adjacent Dependencies: Investigating the Push-Down Stack Model
Article first published online: 27 MAR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01235.x
Copyright © 2012 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.
Additional Information
How to Cite
Uddén, J., Ingvar, M., Hagoort, P. and Petersson, K. M. (2012), Implicit Acquisition of Grammars With Crossed and Nested Non-Adjacent Dependencies: Investigating the Push-Down Stack Model. Cognitive Science, 36: 1078–1101. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01235.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 27 JUL 2012
- Article first published online: 27 MAR 2012
- Received 17 August 2010; received in revised form 22 August 2011; accepted 24 August 2011
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- Artificial grammar learning;
- Non-adjacent dependencies;
- Crossed;
- Nested;
- Implicit learning
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.

1551-6709/asset/COGS_left.gif?v=1&s=e6356e7948de0d0d2160ef560660ca21adae9c8c)
1551-6709/asset/COGS_right.gif?v=1&s=057fe71f80a24ff4016ade3c8aace8dd77cc980f)
