Peer reviewed journal articles

1. Mujezinović, E., Kapatsinski, V., & van de Vijver, R. (2024). One Cue’s Loss Is Another Cue’s Gain—Learning Morphophonology Through Unlearning. Cognitive Science, 48(5), e13450.
   PDF DOI BIB ABSTRACT

   @article{mujezinovic2024,
     title = {One Cue's Loss Is Another Cue's Gain—Learning Morphophonology Through Unlearning},
     author = {Mujezinović, Erdin and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod and van de Vijver, Ruben},
     journal = {Cognitive Science},
     volume = {48},
     number = {5},
     pages = {e13450},
     year = {2024},
     publisher = {Wiley Online Library},
     doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13450},
     file = {mujezinovic2024.pdf}
   }
   

   A word often expresses many different morphological functions. Which part of a word contributes to which part of the overall meaning is not always clear, which raises the question as to how such functions are learned. While linguistic studies tacitly assume the co-occurrence of cues and outcomes to suffice in learning these functions (Baer-Henney, Kügler, & van de Vijver, 2015; Baer-Henney & van de Vijver, 2012), error-driven learning suggests that contingency rather than contiguity is crucial (Nixon, 2020; Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, & Thorpe, 2010). In error-driven learning, cues gain association strength if they predict a certain outcome, and they lose strength if the outcome is absent. This reduction of association strength is called unlearning. So far, it is unclear if such unlearning has consequences for cue–outcome associations beyond the ones that get reduced. To test for such consequences of unlearning, we taught participants morphophonological patterns in an artificial language learning experiment. In one block, the cues to two morphological outcomes—plural and diminutive—co-occurred within the same word forms. In another block, a single cue to only one of these two outcomes was presented in a different set of word forms. We wanted to find out, if participants unlearn this cue’s association with the outcome that is not predicted by the cue alone, and if this allows the absent cue to be associated with the absent outcome. Our results show that if unlearning was possible, participants learned that the absent cue predicts the absent outcome better than if no unlearning was possible. This effect was stronger if the unlearned cue was more salient. This shows that unlearning takes place even if no alternative cues to an absent outcome are provided, which highlights that learners take both positive and negative evidence into account—as predicted by domain general error-driven learning.