Literature DB >> 28340356

Acquiring variation in an artificial language: Children and adults are sensitive to socially conditioned linguistic variation.

Anna Samara1, Kenny Smith2, Helen Brown3, Elizabeth Wonnacott4.   

Abstract

Languages exhibit sociolinguistic variation, such that adult native speakers condition the usage of linguistic variants on social context, gender, and ethnicity, among other cues. While the existence of this kind of socially conditioned variation is well-established, less is known about how it is acquired. Studies of naturalistic language use by children provide various examples where children's production of sociolinguistic variants appears to be conditioned on similar factors to adults' production, but it is difficult to determine whether this reflects knowledge of sociolinguistic conditioning or systematic differences in the input to children from different social groups. Furthermore, artificial language learning experiments have shown that children have a tendency to eliminate variation, a process which could potentially work against their acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. The current study used a semi-artificial language learning paradigm to investigate learning of the sociolinguistic cue of speaker identity in 6-year-olds and adults. Participants were trained and tested on an artificial language where nouns were obligatorily followed by one of two meaningless particles and were produced by one of two speakers (one male, one female). Particle usage was conditioned deterministically on speaker identity (Experiment 1), probabilistically (Experiment 2), or not at all (Experiment 3). Participants were given tests of production and comprehension. In Experiments 1 and 2, both children and adults successfully acquired the speaker identity cue, although the effect was stronger for adults and in Experiment 1. In addition, in all three experiments, there was evidence of regularization in participants' productions, although the type of regularization differed with age: children showed regularization by boosting the frequency of one particle at the expense of the other, while adults regularized by conditioning particle usage on lexical items. Overall, results demonstrate that children and adults are sensitive to speaker identity cues, an ability which is fundamental to tracking sociolinguistic variation, and that children's well-established tendency to regularize does not prevent them from learning sociolinguistically conditioned variation.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial language learning; Language acquisition; Regularization; Sociolinguistic variation; Statistical learning

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28340356     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  8 in total

1.  Can we detect conditioned variation in political speech? two kinds of discussion and types of conversation.

Authors:  Sabina J Sloman; Daniel M Oppenheimer; Simon DeDeo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  When regularization gets it wrong: children over-simplify language input only in production.

Authors:  Jessica F Schwab; Casey Lew-Williams; Adele E Goldberg
Journal:  J Child Lang       Date:  2018-02-21

3.  Kindergarteners Use Cross-Situational Statistics to Infer the Meaning of Grammatical Elements.

Authors:  Sybren Spit; Sible Andringa; Judith Rispens; Enoch O Aboh
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2022-07-06

4.  Learning a language from inconsistent input: Regularization in child and adult learners.

Authors:  Alison C Austin; Kathryn D Schuler; Sarah Furlong; Elissa L Newport
Journal:  Lang Learn Dev       Date:  2021-09-22

5.  Category Clustering and Morphological Learning.

Authors:  John Mansfield; Carmen Saldana; Peter Hurst; Rachel Nordlinger; Sabine Stoll; Balthasar Bickel; Andrew Perfors
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-02

6.  Adult Learning and Language Simplification.

Authors:  Mark Atkinson; Kenny Smith; Simon Kirby
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2018-10-15

7.  Imperfect language learning reduces morphological overspecification: Experimental evidence.

Authors:  Aleksandrs Berdicevskis; Arturs Semenuks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Probability matching is not the default decision making strategy in human and non-human primates.

Authors:  Carmen Saldana; Nicolas Claidière; Joël Fagot; Kenny Smith
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 4.996

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.