Literature DB >> 29176924

Novel phonotactic learning: Tracking syllable-position and co-occurrence constraints.

Amélie Bernard1.   

Abstract

Are syllable-level and co-occurrence representations simultaneously available when one learns novel phonotactics? After training on word-medial consonant restrictions (e.g., word-medial onsets P/Z, codas D/F, and cross-syllable consonant clusters FP/DZ in items like baF.Pev, tiD.Zek), adults falsely recognized novel items containing restricted consonants with the same co-occurrences (e.g., FP) more often than those with different co-occurrences (e.g., FZ) when syllable-position information was kept constant (e.g., vuF.Pet vs. vuF.Zet; Experiment 1). Thus, adults tracked co-occurrence information. Additionally, even when co-occurrence information was different from training, participants more often falsely recognized novel items that contained restricted consonants in the same (e.g., onset-Z) rather than different syllable positions (e.g., coda-Z), whether the restricted consonants were in the same (word-medial, e.g., vuF.Zet vs. vuZ.Fet, Experiment 2) or different word positions (word-edge, e.g., Zut.veF vs. Fut.veZ, Experiment 3). Thus, adults also tracked syllable-level information. These findings show that adults spontaneously represent sound sequences at multiple levels.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult language acquisition; False recognition; Local co-occurrences; Phonotactic learning; Statistical learning; Syllable position

Year:  2017        PMID: 29176924      PMCID: PMC5697785          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  46 in total

1.  Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants.

Authors:  S L Mattys; P W Jusczyk; P A Luce; J L Morgan
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Variability and detection of invariant structure.

Authors:  Rebecca L Gómez
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-09

3.  Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: effects of phonotactic probability and onset density.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; Jonna Armbruster; Shinying Chu
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; Paul A Luce
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2004-08

5.  Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets.

Authors:  Iris Berent
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization.

Authors:  Hyowon Gweon; Joshua B Tenenbaum; Laura E Schulz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Phonotactic constraints on infant word learning.

Authors:  Katharine Graf Estes; Jan Edwards; Jenny R Saffran
Journal:  Infancy       Date:  2011

9.  Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants.

Authors:  Bruna Pelucchi; Jessica F Hay; Jenny R Saffran
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2009 May-Jun

10.  Statistical frequency in perception affects children's lexical production.

Authors:  Peter T Richtsmeier; LouAnn Gerken; Lisa Goffman; Tiffany Hogan
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2009-03-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.