Chunking or not chunking? How do we find words in artificial language learning?

Abstract

What is the nature of the representations acquired in implicit statistical learning? Recent results in the field of language learning have shown that adults and infants are able to find the words of an artificial language when exposed to a continuous auditory sequence consisting in a random ordering of these words. Such performance can only be based on processing the transitional probabilities between sequence elements. Two different kinds of mechanisms may account for these data: Participants may either parse the sequence into smaller chunks corresponding to the words of the artificial language, or they may become progressively sensitive to the actual values of the transitional probabilities between syllables. The two accounts are difficult to differentiate because they make similar predictions in comparable experimental settings. In this study, we present two experiments that aimed at contrasting these two theories. In these experiments, participants had to learn 2 sets of pseudo-linguistic regularities: Language 1 (L1) and Language 2 (L2) presented in the context of a serial reaction time task. L1 and L2 were either unrelated (none of the syllabic transitions of L1 were present in L2), or partly related (some of the intra-words transitions of L1 were used as inter-words transitions of L2). The two accounts make opposite predictions in these two settings. Our results indicate that the nature of the representations depends on the learning condition. When cues were presented to facilitate parsing of the sequence, participants learned the words of the artificial language. However, when no cues were provided, performance was strongly influenced by the employed transitional probabilities.

Keywords: chunking; implicit statistical learning; serial reaction; time task; transitional probabilities.

Figure 1.

Percentage of participants categorized as “verbalizers” in the five experimental groups with randomized and systematic training. In the mI n the control condition, Language 1 (L1) and Language 2 (L2) are unrelated. In the experimental condition, some of L1 “intra-word” transitions become L2 “intra-word”.

Figure 2.

The figure shows mean reaction times (RTs) obtained for unpredictable (Element 1) and predictable elements (Elements 2 and 3) during Language 1 (L1) and Language 2 (L2) blocks. RTs are averaged over experimental and control conditions (left panel). Mean percentage of correct responses during the recognition task for words, non-words, and part-words in the control and experimental conditions are displayed on the right panel. Chance level = 50%.

Figure 3.

The figure shows mean reaction times (RTs) obtained for unpredictable (Element 1) and predictable elements (Elements 2 and 3) during Language 1 (L1) and Language 2 (L2) blocks. RTs are average over experimental and control conditions (left panel). Mean percentage of correct responses during the recognition task for words, non-words, and part-words in the control and experimental conditions are displayed on the right panel. Chance level = 50%.