Constraints on Implicit Learning of Grammatical Form‐Meaning Connections

Abstract

Although there is good evidence for implicit learning of associations between forms, little work has investigated implicit learning of form‐meaning connections, and the findings are somewhat contradictory. Two experiments were carried out using a novel reaction time methodology to investigate implicit learning of grammatical form‐meaning connections. Participants learned four novel articles but were not told about a critical semantic factor that determines agreement with the accompanying noun. Their task was to indicate as quickly as possible which of two pictures was being referred to by an article‐noun combination. The measure of learning was whether response times would slow down when the agreement rule was violated (i.e., when the wrong article was used for the picture being referred to). Experiment 1 revealed such an effect when articles correlated with noun animacy, even for participants with no reported awareness of this regularity. In Experiment 2 no such effect was obtained when the regularity concerned the relative size of two objects. It is concluded that grammatical form‐meaning connections may be learned implicitly, but learning is constrained by the nature of the meaning involved. It is argued that concepts are differentially available to implicit language learning processes.

Role of prior knowledge in implicit and explicit learning of artificial grammars

“…Rather, our results are more consistent with the idea that implicit AGL reflects selective processes (van den Bos & Poletiek, 2009) and can be related to participants' goals (Eitam, Schul & Hassin, 2009), domain-specific constraints (e.g., Chen et al, 2011Leung & Williams, 2011;Rohrmeier & Cross, 2013), and motivational relevance (Eitam & Higgins, 2010). Relatedly, Tanaka, Kiyokawa, Yamada, Dienes and Shigemasu (2008) and Kiyokawa et al (2012) have argued that implicit learning is sensitive to selective perceptual attention and to cultural expectations, respectively.…”

A Review of Models in Experimental Studies of Implicit Language Learning

“…In the introduction section, we mentioned Shanks' conclusion about implicit learning as learning that takes place both unintentionally and unconsciously (Shanks, 2005). Definitions elsewhere (Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991;Clegg et al, 1998;Jiménez et al, 1996;Leung & Williams, 2006;Reber, 1967) also give descriptions like this. It is not difficult to find that the description itself is quite vague, because words like "unintentionally" and "unconsciously" are words without settled definition.…”

“…Another difficulty in defining "implicit learning" is whether it should only include learning that occurs implicitly or all kinds of learning except ones occurring explicitly (Frensch & Rünger, 2003), since "implicit" does not absolutely equal to "unaware", and neither does "explicit" equal "aware". The inconsistency in defining implicit learning causes researchers to design experiments of implicit learning with different concepts of implicit learning in mind (Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991;Clegg et al, 1998;Jiménez et al, 1996;Leung & Williams, 2006), and consequentially makes the results of their experiments incomparable (Frensch & Rünger, 2003).…”

“…Clinical models are important gains from clinical studies. There are three general kinds of models: first, models based on offline methodology (Jiménez et al, 1996); second, models based on online methodology, mostly using RT, ERP or fMRI (Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991;Clegg et al, 1998;Leung & Williams, 2006;Williams, 2004Williams, , 2005; and third, models based on computational methodology, mostly constructed according to constructivist and emergentist views (Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991;Dienes, 1992;Estes, 1957;Hintzmann, 1986;Perruchet & Vinter, 1998). Following these three general models, there are detailed models developed by experimental practices.…”

“…Following these three general models, there are detailed models developed by experimental practices. One of the most popular models using RT is the one developed by Williams in 2004, which examined implicit learning through a series of explicit training sessions that controlled subjects' attention, recording reaction time (RT) and drawing conclusions on which items had been learned implicitly (Chen et al, 2011;Leung & Williams, 2006;Williams, 2004Williams, , 2005.…”