The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species
Open accessAbstract
According to a controversial hypothesis, a characteristic unique to human language is recursion. Contradicting this hypothesis, it has been claimed that the starling, one of the two animal species tested for this ability to date, is able to distinguish acoustic stimuli based on the presence or absence of a center-embedded recursive structure. In our experiment we show that another songbird species, the zebra finch, can also discriminate between artificial song stimuli with these structures. Zebra finches are able to generalize this discrimination to new songs constructed using novel elements belonging to the same categories, similar to starlings. However, to demonstrate that this is based on the ability to detect the putative recursive structure, it is critical to test whether the birds can also distinguish songs with the same structure consisting of elements belonging to unfamiliar categories. We performed this test and show that seven out of eight zebra finches failed it. This suggests that the acquired discrimination was based on phonetic rather than syntactic generalization. The eighth bird, however, must have used more abstract, structural cues. Nevertheless, further probe testing showed that the results of this bird, as well as those of others, could be explained by simpler rules than recursive ones. Although our study casts doubts on whether the rules used by starlings and zebra finches really provide evidence for the ability to detect recursion as present in “context-free” syntax, it also provides evidence for abstract learning of vocal structure in a songbird.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chomsky, N. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9783112316009 · Cited by 7,885
The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 · Cited by 5,189
Cited by
Dehaene, S., Meyniel, F., Wacongne, C., Wang, L., & Pallier, C. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.019 · Cited by 478
Birds, primates, and spoken language origins: behavioral phenotypes and neurobiological substrates
Petkov, C. I., & Jarvis, E. D. (2012) · Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnevo.2012.00012 · Cited by 409
Acoustic sequences in non‐human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus
Kershenbaum, A., Blumstein, D. T., Roch, M. A., Akçay, Ç., Backus, G., Bee, M. A., Bohn, K., Cao, Y., Carter, G., Cäsar, C., et al. (2016) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12160 · Cited by 337
Representation of Numerical and Sequential Patterns in Macaque and Human Brains
Wang, L., Uhrig, L., Jarraya, B., & Dehaene, S. (2015) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.035 · Cited by 166
Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience
Marblestone, A. H., Wayne, G., & Kording, K. P. (2016) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2016.00094 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- van Heijningen, C. A. A., de Visser, J., Zuidema, W., & ten Cate, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 48
- Pages
- 20538-20543
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1992032510
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0908113106
- The paper
- van Heijningen, C. A. A., de Visser, J., Zuidema, W., & ten Cate, C. (2009). Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908113106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.