Publications

Abstract

Learning is using past experiences to inform new behaviors and actions. Because all experiences are unique, learning always requires some generalization. An effective way of improving generalization is to expose learners to more variable (and thus often more representative) input. More variability tends to make initial learning more challenging, but eventually leads to more general and robust performance. This core principle has been repeatedly rediscovered and renamed in different domains (e.g., contextual diversity, desirable difficulties, variability of practice). Reviewing this basic result as it has been formulated in different domains allows us to identify key patterns, distinguish between different kinds of variability, discuss the roles of varying task-relevant versus irrelevant dimensions, and examine the effects of introducing variability at different points in training.

Abstract

On the surface, the fields of animal communication and human linguistics have arrived at conflicting theories and conclusions with respect to the effect of social complexity on communicative complexity. For example, an increase in group size is argued to have opposite consequences on human versus animal communication systems: although an increase in human community size leads to some types of language simplification, an increase in animal group size leads to an increase in signal complexity. But do human and animal communication systems really show such a fundamental discrepancy? Our key message is that the tension between these two adjacent fields is the result of (a) a focus on different levels of analysis (namely, signal variation or grammar-like rules) and (b) an inconsistent use of terminology (namely, the terms “simple” and “complex”). By disentangling and clarifying these terms with respect to different measures of communicative complexity, we show that although animal and human communication systems indeed show some contradictory effects with respect to signal variability, they actually display essentially the same patterns with respect to grammar-like structure. This is despite the fact that the definitions of complexity and simplicity are actually aligned for signal variability, but diverge for grammatical structure. We conclude by advocating for the use of more objective and descriptive terms instead of terms such as “complexity,” which can be applied uniformly for human and animal communication systems—leading to comparable descriptions of findings across species and promoting a more productive dialogue between fields.

Abstract

Cross-linguistic differences in morphological complexity could have important consequences for language learning. Specifically, it is often assumed that languages with more regular, compositional, and transparent grammars are easier to learn by both children and adults. Moreover, it has been shown that such grammars are more likely to evolve in bigger communities. Together, this suggests that some languages are acquired faster than others, and that this advantage can be traced back to community size and to the degree of systematicity in the language. However, the causal relationship between systematic linguistic structure and language learnability has not been formally tested, despite its potential importance for theories on language evolution, second language learning, and the origin of linguistic diversity. In this pre-registered study, we experimentally tested the effects of community size and systematic structure on adult language learning. We compared the acquisition of different yet comparable artificial languages that were created by big or small groups in a previous communication experiment, which varied in their degree of systematic linguistic structure. We asked (a) whether more structured languages were easier to learn; and (b) whether languages created by the bigger groups were easier to learn. We found that highly systematic languages were learned faster and more accurately by adults, but that the relationship between language learnability and linguistic structure was typically non-linear: high systematicity was advantageous for learning, but learners did not benefit from partly or semi-structured languages. Community size did not affect learnability: languages that evolved in big and small groups were equally learnable, and there was no additional advantage for languages created by bigger groups beyond their degree of systematic structure. Furthermore, our results suggested that predictability is an important advantage of systematic structure: participants who learned more structured languages were better at generalizing these languages to new, unfamiliar meanings, and different participants who learned the same more structured languages were more likely to produce similar labels. That is, systematic structure may allow speakers to converge effortlessly, such that strangers can immediately understand each other.