Learning multiple rules simultaneously: affixes are more salient than reduplications

Language learners encounter numerous opportunities to learn regularities, but need to decide which of these regularities to learn, because some are not productive in their native language. Here, we present an account of rule learning based on perceptual and memory primitives (Endress, Dehaene-Lambertz, & Mehler, 2007; Endress, Nespor, & Mehler, 2009), suggesting that learners preferentially learn regularities that are more salient to them, and that the pattern of salience reflects the frequency of language features across languages. We contrast this view with previous artificial grammar learning research, which suggests that infants “choose” the regularities they learn based on rational, Bayesian criteria (Frank & Tenenbaum, 2011; Gerken, 2006, 2010). In our experiments, adult participants listened to syllable strings starting with a syllable reduplication and always ending with the same “a!x” syllable, or to syllable strings starting with this “a!x” syllable and ending with the “reduplication.” Both a!xation and reduplication are frequently used for morphological marking across languages. We find three crucial results. First, participants learned both regularities simultaneously. Second, a!xation regularities seemed easier to learn than reduplication regularities. Third, regularities in sequence o↵sets were easier to learn than regularities at sequence onsets. We show that these results are inconsistent with previous Bayesian rule learning models, but mesh well with the perceptual or memory primitives view. Further, we show that the pattern of salience revealed in our experiments reflects the distribution of regularities across languages. Ease of acquisition might thus be one determinant of the frequency of regularities across languages

Assessing the uniqueness of language: Animal grammatical abilities take center stage

Questions related to the uniqueness of language can only be addressed properly by referring to sound knowledge of the relevant cognitive abilities of nonhuman animals. A key question concerns the nature and extent of animal rule-learning abilities. I discuss two approaches used to assess these abilities. One is comparing the structures of animal vocalizations to linguistic ones, and another is addressing the grammatical rule- and pattern-learning abilities of animals through experiments using artificial grammars. Neither of these approaches has so far provided unambiguous evidence of advanced animal abilities. However, when we consider how animal vocalizations are analyzed, the types of stimuli and tasks that are used in artificial grammar learning experiments, the limited number of species examined, and the groups to which these belong, I argue that the currently available evidence is insufficient to arrive at firm conclusions concerning the limitations of animal grammatical abilities. As a consequence, the gap between human linguistic rule-learning abilities and those of nonhuman animals may be smaller and less clear than is currently assumed. This means that it is still an open question whether a difference in the rule-learning and rule abstraction abilities between animals and humans played the key role in the evolution of language

Language in Nature: on the Evolutionary Roots of a Cultural Phenomenon (draft chapter for The Language Phenomenon)

What distinguishes Man from beast? For all of human history we have been wondering about that question, and over the centuries we have learned to dismiss some of the popular answers. Humans might walk upright more than any other ape, have less hair, be better at long distance running, use tools more readily, have more advanced reasoning skills, be more aware of the thoughts of others or behave mor