Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:24:28.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cross-linguistic perception in infancy: early effects of linguistic experience*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Rebecca E. Eilers
Affiliation:
University of Miami
William J. Gavin
Affiliation:
University of Miami
D. Kimbrough Oller
Affiliation:
University of Miami

Abstract

The possibility that early linguistic experience affects infant speech perception was investigated in a cross-linguistic study with naturally produced speech stimuli. Using the Visually Reinforced Infant Speech Discrimination paradigm, three contrasts were presented to Spanish-and English-learning infants 6–8 months of age. Both groups of infants showed statistically significant discrimination of two contrasts, English and Czech. Only the Spanish-learning infants provided evidence of discrimination of the Spanish contrast. The groups discriminated the English contrast at similarly high levels, but the Spanish-learning infants showed significantly higher performance than the English on both the Spanish and the Czech contrast. The results indicate that early experience does affect early discrimination, and further (since the stimuli were natural) that the effect may be of practical consequence in language learning.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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 by NIMH grant MH 30634. We would like to thank Dr Rebecca Warner for her aid in preparing this manuscript. Address for correspondence: Mailman Center for Child Development, P.O. Box 016820, Miami, FL 33101, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Eilers, R. E. & Gavin, W. J. (1981). The evaluation of infant speech perception skills: statistical techniques and theory development. In Stark, R. E. (ed.), Language behavior in infancy and early childhood. Amsterdam; Elsevier–North–Holland.Google Scholar
Eilers, R. E., Gavin, W. J. & Wilson, W. R. (1979). Linguistic experience and phonemic perception in infancy: a cross linguistic study. ChDev 50. 1418.Google Scholar
Eilers, R. E. & Minifie, F. D. (1975). Fricative discrimination in early infancy. JSHR 18. 158–67.Google Scholar
Eilers, R. E. & Oller, D. K. (1978). A cross-linguistic study of infant speech perception. Paper presented at the Southeastern Conference on Human Development,Atlanta, Ga.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D. (1974). Auditory and linguistic processing of cues for place of articulation by infants. PerceptPsychophys 16. 513–21.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D. (1975). Speech perception in early infancy. In Cohen, L. B. & Salapatek, P.. (eds), Infant perception. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P. & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science 171. 303318.Google Scholar
Hays, W. L. (1966). Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lasky, R. E., Syrdal-Lasky, A. & Klein, R. E. (1975). VOT discrimination by four- to six-and-a-half-month old infants from Spanish environment. JExpChPsychol 20. 215–25.Google Scholar
Morse, P. A. (1972). The discrimination of speech and nonspeech stimuli in early infancy. JExpChPsychol 14. 477–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Streeter, L. A. (1976). Language perception of two-month old infants shows effects of both innate mechanisms and experience. Nature 259. 3941.Google Scholar
Till, J. A. (1976). Infant's discrimination of speech and non-speech stimuli. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association,Houston.Google Scholar
Trehub, S. E. (1973). Infant's sensitivity to vowel and tonal contrasts. DevPsychol 9. 91–6.Google Scholar
Trehub, S. E. (1976). The discrimination of foreign speech contrasts by infants and adults. ChDev 47. 466–72.Google Scholar