Speech errors typically respect the speaker's implicit knowledge of language-wide phonotactics (e.g., /t/ cannot be a syllable onset in the English language). Previous work demonstrated that adults can learn novel experimentally induced phonotactic constraints by producing syllable strings in which the allowable position of a phoneme depends on another phoneme within the sequence (e.g., /t/ can only be an onset if the medial vowel is /i/), but not earlier than the second day of training. Thus far, no work has been done with children. In the current 4-day experiment, a group of Dutch-speaking adults and 9-year-old children were asked to rapidly recite sequences of novel word forms (e.g., ) that were consistent with phonotactics of the spoken Dutch language. Within the procedure of the experiment, some consonants (i.e., /t/ and /k/) were restricted to the onset or coda position depending on the medial vowel (i.e., /i/ or "ie" vs. /øː/ or "eu"). Speech errors in adults revealed a learning effect for the novel constraints on the second day of learning, consistent with earlier findings. A post hoc analysis at the trial level showed that learning was statistically reliable after an exposure of 120 sequence trials (including a consolidation period). However, children started learning the constraints already on the first day. More precisely, the effect appeared significantly after an exposure of 24 sequences. These findings indicate that children are rapid implicit learners of novel phonotactics, which bears important implications for theorizing about developmental sensitivities in language learning. (PsycINFO Database Record

Several studies found cross-linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order, for transitive and ditransitive structures. We varied these features in an artificial language learning paradigm, using three different artificial language versions in a between-subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no overt case marking, SVO word order) and a) an SVO order version, b) a case marking version, and c) an SOV order version. Similar within-language and cross-linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitives, indicating that cross-linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitives we found similar within-language priming for all versions, but no cross-linguistic priming. The finding that cross-linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross-linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions.

Two longitudinal studies investigated the development of syntactic representations in late second language (L2) learners by means of structural priming in an artificial language (AL)paradigm. Several studies found cross-linguistic structural priming in L2 learners, suggesting that they have shared syntactic representations across languages. But how are these shared representations established? Hartsuiker and Bernolet’s (2017) account claims that 1) L2 syntactic representations evolve gradually from being item-specific to more abstract, and that 2) over time these representations are integrated with available native language (L1) representations. We tested predictions of this theory with native Dutch speakers, who acquired the AL in the lab during five sessions by means of a battery of tasks, the last of which was a sentence priming task. The AL syntax resembled Dutch syntax. We manipulated the relation between prime and target to investigate whether structural priming occurred in conditions with meaning overlap (item-specific) and without overlap (abstract). In Experiment 1, participants responded only in the AL, but in Experiment 2, where the AL was more difficult, the target sentence could also be in Dutch. In both studies, there was an effect of within-language priming and AL-Dutch priming in transitives and ditransitives, but no effect of Dutch-AL priming in ditransitives on Day 1. On Days 2-5, however, priming emerged in mostcross-linguistic priming conditions. These findings partly confirm Hartsuiker and Bernolet’s (2017) predictions and suggest that at least for structures that are very similar between languages, shared syntactic representations can be established very early during language learning.

It is still an unresolved question why adults do not learn languages as effortlessly as children do. We tested the hypothesis that the higher cognitive control abilities in adults interfere with implicit learning mechanisms relevant for language acquisition. Across 2 days, Dutch-speaking adults were asked to rapidly recite novel syllable strings in which, unannounced to the participants, the allowed position of a phoneme depended on another adjacent phoneme. Their cognitive control system was either depleted or not depleted prior to learning, after performing an individually tailored dual working-memory task under high or low cognitive load. A third group did not perform any cognitive task prior to training. Speech error analyses revealed stronger (and faster) learning of the novel phoneme combination constraints in the cognitively depleted group compared with the other two groups. This indicates that late-developing cognitive control abilities, and in particular attentional control, constitute an important antagonist of implicit learning behavior relevant for language acquisition. These findings offer novel insights into developmental changes in implicit learning mechanisms and how to alter them temporarily in order to improve language skills in adults.

Several studies used artificial language (AL) learning paradigms to investigate structural priming between languages in early phases of learning. The presence of such priming would indicate that syntactic representations are shared across these languages. found similar priming between Dutch (SVO order) and an AL with either SVO or SOV order. However, it is unclear whether such sharing would occur if the AL allows both the same and different word order as the native language. Indeed, the presence of a (easy to share) similar structure might block the sharing of a less similar structure. Here, we report two experiments that each tested 48 native speakers of Dutch on an AL that allowed both SVO and SOV order in transitive and ditransitive sentences. We assessed both within-AL and AL-Dutch priming. We predicted a) priming of both structure and word order within the AL, and b) that the presence of SVO sentences in the AL would result in weaker priming to Dutch from SOV sentences than from SVO sentences. Indeed, cross-linguistic priming was significantly weaker in the SOV compared to the SVO conditions, in line with our predictions. Unexpectedly, in the absence of a condition with verb overlap between prime and target sentences, no priming was found in AL and Dutch target conditions without verb overlap (Experiment 1), but priming emerged when a verb overlap condition was added (Experiment 2). This finding suggests that lexical overlap conditions are crucial to establish abstract syntactic representations during early L2 acquisition.