Cover not available

In:Theoretical Issues in Second Language Research: Challenges and new directions
Edited by Junya Fukuta, John Matthews and Shigenori Wakabayashi
[Studies in Bilingualism 69] 2026
► pp. 151–173

Chapter 7
From universals to learning

Generating new predictions for SLA theories using artificial language learning

 | University of Edinburgh
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Artificial grammar or language learning paradigms (henceforth ALL) have long been a core tool for understanding language acquisition. Findings from laboratory learning of miniature language systems have shed light on the cognitive mechanisms responsible for natural language learning, starting with studies on implicit learning in the 1960s (e.g., Estes, 1964; Reber, 1967), and studies on statistical/implicit learning starting in the 1990s (e.g., Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996; Aslin, Saffran, & Newport, 1998; Williams, 1999). While artificial grammar learning paradigms of the past often featured meaning-free sequences of symbols, presented to participants via passive exposure, now many studies include much richer linguistic content, as well as communicative and social context. This opens the door to new connections with second language acquisition (SLA) research. In this chapter, I survey recent findings from the experimental linguistics literature, where a major new area of research has emerged, using artificial language learning experiments to test predicted links between cognition and typological universals, or generalisations. Of course, universals have long had a place in SLA (e.g., Rutherford, 1984; Carlisle, 2001; L. White, 2003). However, the empirical basis for purported universals has begun to move forward in leaps and bounds. In light of this, I would like to argue here that the time is right for renewed interaction with the SLA community, in the service of generating and testing key predictions for theories coming from both sides.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Artificial language learning and word order typology
    • 2.1Word order harmony
    • 2.2Universal 20
    • 2.3Universal 1: Basic word order
  • 3.Links to typology, links to SLA
    • 3.1Adult learners in ALL and SLA
    • 3.2Early stages of learning
    • 3.3Two languages in one mind
    • 3.4Implications for second language teaching
  • 4.Conclusions, and beyond word order
  • Author queries
  • Note
  • References
References (94)
References
Abels, K., & Neeleman, A. (2012). Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax, 15(1), 25–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Behind the L2 status factor: A neurolinguistic framework for L3 research. In J. Cabrelli, J. Rothman, & S. Flynn (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 61–78). New York, NY: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. (1992). Why small children cannot change language on their own: Suggestions from the English past tense. In Papers from the 5th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 29–37). New York, NY: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. (2001). Syllable structure universals and second language acquisition. International Journal of English Studies, 1(1), 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carr, J., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2020). Simplicity and informativeness in semantic category systems. Cognition, 202, 104289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Vit´anyi, P. (2003). Simplicity: A unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 19–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 315–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Language learners extrapolation of word order in microartificial languages. Language Learning, 38(4), 497–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cournane, A. (2017). In defense of the child innovator. In E. Mathieu & R. Truswell (Eds.), Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax (pp. 10–24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2023). Artificial language learning. In J. Sprouse (Ed.), Oxford handbook of experimental syntax (pp. 271–300). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Adger, D. (2014). Language learners privilege structured meaning over surface frequency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5842–5847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Franck, J., Braquet, G., Barrera Navarro, M., & Arnon, I. (2020). A learning bias for word order harmony: Evidence from speakers of non-harmonic languages. Cognition, 204, 104392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2016). Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain general biases have domain specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Newport, E. L. (2015). Harmonic biases in child learners: In support of language universals. Cognition, 139, 71–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Innovation of word order harmony across development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 91–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Schouwstra, M., & Kirby, S. (2020). From the world to word order: Deriving biases in noun phrase order from statistical properties of the world. Language, 96(3), 696–717. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition, 122, 306–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2012). Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in complex systems, 15(03n04), 1150017. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In B. Heine & H. Norrog (Eds.), Handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 130–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective and noun. Language, 94(4), 798–833. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egurtzegi, A., Sauppe, S., Isasi-Isasmendi, A., de la Hidalga, G. M., BornkesselSchlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., … Andrews, C. (2025). The effect of animacy on the agent preference: Self-paced reading evidence from Basque. Memory & Cognition, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1964). All-or-none processes in learning and retention. American Psychologist, 19(1), 16–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17897–17902. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feh´er, O., Wonnacott, E., & Smith, K. (2016). Structural priming in artificial languages and the regularisation of unpredictable variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 158–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferdinand, V., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2019). The cognitive roots of regularization in language. Cognition, 184, 53–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fletcher, L., Rabagliati, H., & Culbertson, J. (2024). Autistic traits, communicative efficiency, and social biases shape language learning in autistic and allistic learners. Cognitive Science, 48(11), e70007. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Hickey, T., Lee, A., Lim, E., Luchkina, E., & Gibson, E. (2015). Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition, 136, 215–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piandadosi, S. T., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., & Levy, R. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Ozyurek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The nat-¨ ural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9163–9168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammarstr¨om, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M., & Bank, S. (2025). Glottolog 5.2.1. Retrieved June 11, 2025, from Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnenmeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huber, E., Sauppe, S., Isasi-Isasmendi, A., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Merlo, P., & Bickel, B. (2024). Surprisal from language models can predict erps in processing predicate-argument structures only if enriched by an agent preference principle. Neurobiology of Language, 5(1), 167–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C., & Newport, E. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 30–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keogh, A., Kirby, S., & Culbertson, J. (2024). Predictability and variation in language are differentially affected by learning and production. Cognitive Science, 48(4), e13435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(31), 10681–10686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Griffiths, T., & Smith, K. (2014). Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28, 108–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Tamariz, M., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2015). Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition, 141, 87–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of language change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Evans, N. (2010). Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on ‘the myth of language universals’. Lingua, 120(12), 2733–2758. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Rule classes and syntactic change. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(1), 83–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Born to parse: How children select their languages. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS One, 5(1), e8559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maldonado, M., & Culbertson, J. (2020). Person of interest: Experimental investigations into the learnability of person systems. Linguistic Inquiry, 53(2), 295–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malik-Moraleda, S., Taliaferro, M., Shannon, S., Jhingan, N., Swords, S., Peterson, D. J., … et al. (2025). Constructed languages are processed by the same brain mechanisms as natural languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(12), e2313473122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A., Adger, D., Abels, K., Kanampiu, P., & Culbertson, J. (2024). A universal cognitive bias in word order: Evidence from speakers whose language goes against it. Psychological Science, 35(3), 304–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A., & Culbertson, J. (2020). Revisiting the suffixing preference: Native language affixation patterns influence perception of sequences. Psychological Science, 31(9), 1107–1116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A., Kanampiu, P., Adger, D., Abels, K., & Culbertson, J. (2020). Does a universal hierarchical structure underlie word order typology? In A. Ravignani et al. (Eds.), The evolution of language. Proceedings of EVOLANG 13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A., Ratitamkul, T., Abels, K., Adger, D., & Culbertson, J. (2019). Cross-linguistic evidence for cognitive universals in the noun phrase. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, I., Aronoff, M., B¨orstell, C., Hwang, S.-O., Ilkbasaran, D., Kastner, I., … Sandler, W. (2017). The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition, 158, 189–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moreton, E. (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology, 25(1), 83–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moreton, E., & Pater, J. (2012). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 686–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Wolters, L., Schouwstra, M., & Kirby, S. (2022). The effects of iconicity and conventionalization on word order preferences. Cognitive Science, 46(10), e13203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicoladis, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective–noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 15–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ono, H., Kubo, T., Sato, M., Sakai, H., & Koizumi, M. (2023). Word orders, gestures, and a view of the world from os languages. In Issues in Japanese psycholinguistics from comparative perspectives. Volume 1: Cross-linguistic studies (pp. 63–87). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pycha, A., Nowak, P., Shin, E., & Shosted, R. (2003). Phonological rulelearning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 101–114). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, G., & Fedzechkina, M. (2018). Social biases modulate the loss of redundant forms in the cultural evolution of language. Cognition, 171, 194–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldana, C., Herce, B., & Bickel, B. (2022). More or less unnatural: Semantic similarity shapes the learnability and cross-linguistic distribution of unnatural syncretism in morphological paradigms. Open Mind, 6, 183–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldana, C., Kanampiu, P., & Culbertson, J. (2025). Gender comes first: Experimental evidence for the representation of gender closer to the noun stem than number across linguistic populations. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldana, C., Oseki, Y., & Culbertson, J. (2021). Cross-linguistic patterns of morpheme order reflect cognitive biases: An experimental study of case and number morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 118, 104204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauppe, S., Næss, ˚A., Roversi, G., Meyer, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Bickel, B. (2023). An agent-first preference in a patient-first language during sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 47(9), e13340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schouwstra, M., & de Swart, H. (2014). The semantic origins of word order. Cognition, 131(3), 431 — 436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semenuks, A. (2021). It’s not so simple: morphosyntactically simpler languages are not always easier to learn. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43 (pp. 2437–2443). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Culbertson, J. (2025). Communicative pressures shape language during communication (not learning): Evidence from case-marking in artificial languages. Cognition, 263(24). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K., Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S. (2013). Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3442–3447). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition, 116(3), 444–449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sneller, B., & Roberts, G. (2018). Why some behaviors spread while others don’t: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact. Cognition, 170, 298–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1997). Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. (Ms.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabullo, A., Arismendi, M., Wainselboim, A., Primero, G., Vernis, S., Segura, E., … Yorio, A. (2012). On the learnability of frequent and infrequent word orders: An artificial language learning study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(9), 1848–1863. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tal, S., & Arnon, I. (2022). Redundancy can benefit learning: Evidence from word order and case marking. Cognition, 224, 105055. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, B., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2016). Culture shapes the evolution of cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(16), 4530–4535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, H. (2016). Monovalent ‘features’ in phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(2), 83–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, S., Smith, K., & Culbertson, J. (2019). Acquiring agglutinating and fusional languages can be similarly difficult: Evidence from an adaptive tracking study. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3050–3056). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, F., Kirby, S., & Culbertson, J. (2025). The learning bias for crosscategory harmony is sensitive to semantic similarity: Evidence from artificial language learning experiments. Language, 101(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–682. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, J. (2014). Evidence for a learning bias against saltatory phonological alternations. Cognition, 130(1), 96–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 30(5), 945–982. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2000). Internal and external forces in language change. Language variation and change, 12(3), 231–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zaslavsky, N. (2019). Information-theoretic principles in the evolution of semantic systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue