Publications

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4
  • Bocanegra, B. R., Poletiek, F. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2022). Language concatenates perceptual features into representations during comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 127: 104355. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2022.104355.

    Abstract

    Although many studies have investigated the activation of perceptual representations during language comprehension, to our knowledge only one previous study has directly tested how perceptual features are combined into representations during comprehension. In their classic study, Potter and Faulconer [(1979). Understanding noun phrases. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 509–521.] investigated the perceptual representation of adjective-noun combinations. However, their non-orthogonal design did not allow the differentiation between conjunctive vs. disjunctive representations. Using randomized orthogonal designs, we observe evidence for disjunctive perceptual representations when participants represent feature combinations simultaneously (in several experiments; N = 469), and we observe evidence for conjunctive perceptual representations when participants represent feature combinations sequentially (In several experiments; N = 628). Our findings show that the generation of conjunctive representations during comprehension depends on the concatenation of linguistic cues, and thus suggest the construction of elaborate perceptual representations may critically depend on language.
  • Poletiek, F. H., Monaghan, P., van de Velde, M., & Bocanegra, B. R. (2021). The semantics-syntax interface: Learning grammatical categories and hierarchical syntactic structure through semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(7), 1141-1155. doi:10.1037/xlm0001044.

    Abstract

    Language is infinitely productive because syntax defines dependencies between grammatical categories of words and constituents, so there is interchangeability of these words and constituents within syntactic structures. Previous laboratory-based studies of language learning have shown that complex language structures like hierarchical center embeddings (HCE) are very hard to learn, but these studies tend to simplify the language learning task, omitting semantics and focusing either on learning dependencies between individual words or on acquiring the category membership of those words. We tested whether categories of words and dependencies between these categories and between constituents, could be learned simultaneously in an artificial language with HCE’s, when accompanied by scenes illustrating the sentence’s intended meaning. Across four experiments, we showed that participants were able to learn the HCE language varying words across categories and category-dependencies, and constituents across constituents-dependencies. They also were able to generalize the learned structure to novel sentences and novel scenes that they had not previously experienced. This simultaneous learning resulting in a productive complex language system, may be a consequence of grounding complex syntax acquisition in semantics.
  • Lai, J., & Poletiek, F. H. (2011). The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of center-embedded hierarchical structures. Cognition, 118(2), 265-273. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.011.

    Abstract

    A theoretical debate in artificial grammar learning (AGL) regards the learnability of hierarchical structures. Recent studies using an AnBn grammar draw conflicting conclusions (Bahlmann and Friederici, 2006, De Vries et al., 2008). We argue that 2 conditions crucially affect learning AnBn structures: sufficient exposure to zero-level-of-embedding (0-LoE) exemplars and a staged-input. In 2 AGL experiments, learning was observed only when the training set was staged and contained 0-LoE exemplars. Our results might help understanding how natural complex structures are learned from exemplars.
  • Poletiek, F. H. (2011). You can't have your hypothesis and test it: The importance of utilities in theories of reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 87-88. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10002980.

Share this page