Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias

In an artificial language experiment, participants were taught two different artificial languages consisting of English content words and novel morphological marking. The first of the languages had matching alignment in both case and agreement, as attested in natural languages such as Basque, Belhar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michelle Sheehan, Albertyna Paciorek, John Williams
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Library of Humanities 2018-08-01
Series:Glossa
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/413
id doaj-0c006306efee442882214d726c09e1d7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0c006306efee442882214d726c09e1d72021-09-02T09:43:02ZengOpen Library of HumanitiesGlossa2397-18352018-08-013110.5334/gjgl.413257Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive biasMichelle Sheehan0Albertyna Paciorek1John Williams2Anglia Ruskin UniversityUniversity of WarsawUniversity of CambridgeIn an artificial language experiment, participants were taught two different artificial languages consisting of English content words and novel morphological marking. The first of the languages had matching alignment in both case and agreement, as attested in natural languages such as Basque, Belhare and Tsez. The other language combined accusative case alignment with ergative agreement alignment, a combination which is apparently unattested amongst natural languages. There was no significant difference between the languages in terms of the proportion of participants that showed awareness of the agreement pattern, nor in the ability of aware participants to recall case markers and inflections during training, or select the correct verb inflection in the generation post-test. However, amongst participants who remained unaware of the agreement pattern there was a significant difference in recall of verb inflections and case markers during the exposure phase task – recall was more accurate in the (attested) language with matching case and agreement alignment than the (nonattested) language in which case and agreement alignment were unmatched. We take this as evidence that there is a cognitive bias against the unattested non-matching alignment, reflected in implicit learning.https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/413agreementcasealignmentartificial languageergativityimplicit learning
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Michelle Sheehan
Albertyna Paciorek
John Williams
spellingShingle Michelle Sheehan
Albertyna Paciorek
John Williams
Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
Glossa
agreement
case
alignment
artificial language
ergativity
implicit learning
author_facet Michelle Sheehan
Albertyna Paciorek
John Williams
author_sort Michelle Sheehan
title Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
title_short Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
title_full Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
title_fullStr Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
title_full_unstemmed Case/agreement matching: Evidence for a cognitive bias
title_sort case/agreement matching: evidence for a cognitive bias
publisher Open Library of Humanities
series Glossa
issn 2397-1835
publishDate 2018-08-01
description In an artificial language experiment, participants were taught two different artificial languages consisting of English content words and novel morphological marking. The first of the languages had matching alignment in both case and agreement, as attested in natural languages such as Basque, Belhare and Tsez. The other language combined accusative case alignment with ergative agreement alignment, a combination which is apparently unattested amongst natural languages. There was no significant difference between the languages in terms of the proportion of participants that showed awareness of the agreement pattern, nor in the ability of aware participants to recall case markers and inflections during training, or select the correct verb inflection in the generation post-test. However, amongst participants who remained unaware of the agreement pattern there was a significant difference in recall of verb inflections and case markers during the exposure phase task – recall was more accurate in the (attested) language with matching case and agreement alignment than the (nonattested) language in which case and agreement alignment were unmatched. We take this as evidence that there is a cognitive bias against the unattested non-matching alignment, reflected in implicit learning.
topic agreement
case
alignment
artificial language
ergativity
implicit learning
url https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/413
work_keys_str_mv AT michellesheehan caseagreementmatchingevidenceforacognitivebias
AT albertynapaciorek caseagreementmatchingevidenceforacognitivebias
AT johnwilliams caseagreementmatchingevidenceforacognitivebias
_version_ 1721176853450850304