4.5 Article

Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys

Journal

COGNITION
Volume 107, Issue 2, Pages 479-500

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.010

Keywords

infants; monkeys; grammar learning; statistical learning

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P30 HD03352, R01 HD037466-05A1, P30 HD003352, R01 HD037466-06, R01HD37466, R01 HD037466] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC005863, 1 R01 DC005863-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is a surprising degree of overlapping structure evident across the languages of the world. One factor leading to cross-linguistic similarities may be constraints on human learning abilities. Linguistic structures that are easier for infants to learn should predominate in human languages. If correct, then (a) human infants should more readily acquire structures that are consistent with the form of natural language, whereas (b) non-human primates' patterns of learning should be less tightly linked to the structure of human languages. Prior experiments have not directly compared laboratory-based learning of grammatical structures by human infants and non-human primates, especially under comparable testing conditions and with similar materials. Five experiments with 12-month-old human infants and adult cotton-top tamarin monkeys addressed these predictions, employing comparable methods (familiarization-discrimination) and materials. Infants rapidly acquired complex grammatical structures by using statistically predictive patterns, failing to learn structures that lacked such patterns. In contrast, the tamarins only exploited predictive patterns when learning relatively simple grammatical structures. Infant learning abilities may serve both to facilitate natural language acquisition and to impose constraints on the structure of human languages. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available