Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
-
Poletiek, F. H., & Olfers, K. J. F. (2016). Authentication by the crowd: How lay students identify the style of a 17th century artist. CODART e-Zine, 8. Retrieved from http://ezine.codart.nl/17/issue/57/artikel/19-21-june-madrid/?id=349#!/page/3.
-
Poletiek, F. H., Fitz, H., & Bocanegra, B. R. (2016). What baboons can (not) tell us about natural language grammars. Cognition, 151, 108-112. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.016.
Abstract
Rey et al. (2012) present data from a study with baboons that they interpret in support of the idea that center-embedded structures in human language have their origin in low level memory mechanisms and associative learning. Critically, the authors claim that the baboons showed a behavioral preference that is consistent with center-embedded sequences over other types of sequences. We argue that the baboons’ response patterns suggest that two mechanisms are involved: first, they can be trained to associate a particular response with a particular stimulus, and, second, when faced with two conditioned stimuli in a row, they respond to the most recent one first, copying behavior they had been rewarded for during training. Although Rey et al. (2012) ‘experiment shows that the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level mechanisms, it is not clear how the animal behavior reported, bears on the phenomenon of Center Embedded structures in human syntax. Hence, (1) natural language syntax may indeed have been shaped by low level mechanisms, and (2) the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level stimulus response learning, as Rey et al. propose. But is the second evidence for the first? We will discuss in what ways this study can and cannot give evidential value for explaining the origin of Center Embedded recursion in human grammar. More generally, their study provokes an interesting reflection on the use of animal studies in order to understand features of the human linguistic system. -
Poletiek, F. H., & Lai, J. (2012). How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: A statistical account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 2046 -2054. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0100.
Abstract
A major theoretical debate in language acquisition research regards the learnability of hierarchical structures. The artificial grammar learning methodology is increasingly influential in approaching this question. Studies using an artificial centre-embedded AnBn grammar without semantics draw conflicting conclusions. This study investigates the facilitating effect of distributional biases in simple AB adjacencies in the input sample—caused in natural languages, among others, by semantic biases—on learning a centre-embedded structure. A mathematical simulation of the linguistic input and the learning, comparing various distributional biases in AB pairs, suggests that strong distributional biases might help us to grasp the complex AnBn hierarchical structure in a later stage. This theoretical investigation might contribute to our understanding of how distributional features of the input—including those caused by semantic variation—help learning complex structures in natural languages. -
Poletiek, F. H. (2006). De dwingende macht van een Goed Verhaal [Boekbespreking van Vincent plast op de grond:Nachtmerries in het Nederlands recht door W.A. Wagenaar]. De Psycholoog, 41, 460-462.
-
Poletiek, F. H., & Chater, N. (2006). Grammar induction profits from representative stimulus sampling. In R. Sun (
Ed. ), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2006) (pp. 1968-1973). Austin, TX, USA: Cognitive Science Society. -
Poletiek, F. H. (2006). Natural sampling of stimuli in (artificial) grammar learning. In K. Fiedler, & P. Juslin (
Eds. ), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 440-455). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Van den Bos, E. J., & Poletiek, F. H. (2006). Implicit artificial grammar learning in adults and children. In R. Sun (
Ed. ), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2006) (pp. 2619). Austin, TX, USA: Cognitive Science Society.
Share this page