Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-67wsf Total loading time: 0.402 Render date: 2022-05-28T08:12:56.384Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Dense neighborhoods and mechanisms of learning: evidence from children with phonological delay*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2014

JUDITH A. GIERUT*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, USA
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE
Affiliation:
Indiana University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Judith A. Gierut, Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, 200 South Jordan Avenue, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47407, USA. e-mail: gierut@indiana.edu

Abstract

There is a noted advantage of dense neighborhoods in language acquisition, but the learning mechanism that drives the effect is not well understood. Two hypotheses – long-term auditory word priming and phonological working memory – have been advanced in the literature as viable accounts. These were evaluated in two treatment studies enrolling twelve children with phonological delay. Study 1 exposed children to dense neighbors versus non-neighbors before training sound production in evaluation of the priming hypothesis. Study 2 exposed children to the same stimuli after training sound production as a test of the phonological working memory hypothesis. Results showed that neighbors led to greater phonological generalization than non-neighbors, but only when presented prior to training production. There was little generalization and no differential effect of exposure to neighbors or non-neighbors after training production. Priming was thus supported as a possible mechanism of learning behind the dense neighborhood advantage in phonological acquisition.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DC001694. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Dan Dinnsen for input on the manuscript, Rachel Dale and Maureen Orawiec for assistance with stimulus development, and members of the Learnability Project for help with phonetic transcription, reliability, data entry, and analyses. Paul and Alice Sharp of Sharp Designs & Illustration Inc. supplied the illustrations.

References

Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review 105, 158–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bain, B. A. & Dollaghan, C. A. (1991). The notion of clinically significant change. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 22, 264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, E. & McLeod, S. (2011). Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: Part 1 narrative review. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 42, 102–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckman, M. E. & Edwards, J. (2000). Lexical frequency effects on young children's imitative productions. In Broe, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology V, 207–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Munson, B. & Edwards, J. (2007). Vocabulary growth and the developmental expansion of types of phonological knowledge. In Cole, J. S. & Hualde, J. I. (eds), Laboratory phonology 9, 241–64. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beeson, P. & Robey, R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review 16, 161169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, H., Franklin, S. & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verb and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 33, 73–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bothe, A. K. & Richardson, J. D. (2011). Statistical, practical, clinical, and personal significance: definitions and applications in speech-language pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 20, 233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J. & MacWhinney, B. (2000). Phonological priming in children's picture naming. Journal of Child Language 27, 335–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busk, P. L. & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In Kratochwill, T. R. & Levin, J. R. (eds), Single-case research design and analysis, 187212. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17, 205–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Church, B. A. & Fisher, C. (1998). Long-term auditory word priming in preschoolers: implicit memory support for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 523–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Cara, B. & Goswami, U. (2003). Phonological neighborhood density effects in a rhyme awareness task in 5-year old-children. Journal of Child Language 30, 695710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demke, T. L., Graham, S. A. & Siakaluk, P. D. (2002). The influence of exposure to phonological neighbours on pre-schoolers’ novel word production. Journal of Child Language 29, 379–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, D. A. (1984). Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Weismer, G. (eds), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child (ASHA Monographs No. 22) (pp. 517). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Google Scholar
Dollaghan, C. A. (1994). Children's phonological neighbourhoods: Half empty or half full? Journal of Child Language 21, 257–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dollaghan, C. & Campbell, T. F. (1998). Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 1136–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E. & Munson, B. (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 421–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Powell, T. W. (1984). On the prediction of phonologic generalization learning patterns. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49, 309–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, K. G., Edwards, J. & Saffran, J. R. (2011). Phonotactic constraints on infant word learning. Infancy 16, 180–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first fifty words. Language 51, 419–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C. & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age-of-acquisition, word frequency and neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 468–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. & Adams, A.-M. (1993). Phonological working memory in very young children. Developmental Psychology 29, 770–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (2008a). Fundamentals of experimental design and treatment. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 93118. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (2008b). Phonological disorders and the Developmental Phonology Archive. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 3792. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2011). Effect size in clinical phonology. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 25, 975–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2012a). Age-of-word acquisition effects in treatment of children with phonological delays. Applied Psycholinguistics 33, 121–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2012b). Density, frequency and the expressive phonology of children with delay. Journal of Child Language 39, 804–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2014). How to meet the neighbors: modality effects on phonological generalization. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 28, 477–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M. L. & Champion, A. H. (1999). Lexical constraints in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 26, 261–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & O'Connor, K. M. (2002). Precursors to onset clusters in acquisition. Journal of Child Language 29, 495517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 395427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, G. (1977). Integrating findings: the meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education 5, 351–79.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. E. (1996). Child phonology in Optimality Theory: ranking markedness and faithfulness constraints. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Vol. 1 (pp. 237–48). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E. R. & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of learning, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hoover, J. R. & Storkel, H. (2013). Grammatical treatment and specific language impairment: neighbourhood density & third person singular -s . Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 27, 661–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A. & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 630–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J. & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities–Revised. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Krull, V., Choi, S., Kirk, K. I., Prusick, L. & French, B. (2010). Lexical effects on spoken-word recognition in children with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing 31, 102–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B., Miller, C. A., Grela, B., Holland, A. L., Gerber, E. & Petucci, M. (2000). Production operations contribute to the grammatical morpheme limitations of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, P. A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Macken, M. A. (1980). The child's lexical representation: the ‘puzzle-puddle-pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maye, J. & Gerken, L. (2000). Learning phonemes without minimal pairs. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A. & Keith-Lucas, T. (eds), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 522–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. M. & Marazita, J. M. (1995). The effect of hearing similar-sounding words on young 2-year-olds’ disambiguation of novel noun reference. Developmental Psychology 31, 973–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition 25, 4756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrisette, M. L. & Gierut, J. A. (2002). Lexical organization and phonological change in treatment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 143–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munson, B. (2001). Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 778–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Stochastic phonology. Glot International 5, 195207.Google Scholar
Read, K., Macauley, M. & Furay, E. (2014). The Seuss boost: rhyme helps children retain words from shared storybook reading. First Language 34, 354–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1995). Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: a theory of segmental elaboration. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, 2342. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robbins, J. & Klee, T. (1987). Clinical assessment of oropharyngeal motor development in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52, 271–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roid, G. H. & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised. Chicago: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 610–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of young children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6, 557–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: the persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development 2, 2749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriberg, L. D., Austin, D., Lewis, B., McSweeny, J. & Wilson, D. (1997). The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric: extensions and reliability data. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 708–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, L. D. & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological disorders II: a conceptual framework for management. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 47, 242–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, L. D. & Kwiatkowski, J. (1994). Developmental phonological disorders I: a clinical profile. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37, 1100–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J. & Gruber, F. A. (1994). Developmental phonological disorders II: short-term speech-sound normalization. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37, 1127–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, L. D., Lohmeier, H. L., Campbell, T. F., Dollaghan, C. A., Green, J. R. & Moore, C. A. (2009). A nonword repetition task for speakers with misarticulations: the Syllable Repetition Task (SRT). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 1189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, A. V. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2012). Lexical and phonological effects in early word production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, 596608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoel-Gammon, C. (2011). Relationships between lexical and phonological development in young children. Journal of Child Language 38, 134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. F., Bleses, D., Basbøll, H. & Lambersten, C. (2012). Statistical learning in emerging lexicons: the case of Danish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, 1265–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2002). Restructuring of similarity neighborhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language 29, 251–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004a). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004b). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1454–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2013). A corpus of consonant-vowel-consonant real words and nonwords: comparison of phonotactic probability, neighborhood density, and consonant age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods 45, 1159–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasilyeva, M. & Waterfall, H. (2012). Beyond syntactic priming: evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language 39, 258–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walley, A. C. (1993). The role of vocabulary development in children's spoken word recognition and segmentation ability. Developmental Review 13, 286350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Zamuner, T. S., Gerken, L. & Hammond, M. (2004). Phonotactic probabilities in young children's speech production. Journal of Child Language 31, 515–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwitserlood, P. (1997). Form priming. In Grosjean, F. & Frauenfelder, U. H. (eds), A guide to spoken word recognition paradigms, 589–96. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Dense neighborhoods and mechanisms of learning: evidence from children with phonological delay*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Dense neighborhoods and mechanisms of learning: evidence from children with phonological delay*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Dense neighborhoods and mechanisms of learning: evidence from children with phonological delay*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *