Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:14:42.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of phonological neighborhood density in childhood word production and recognition in Russian are opposite to English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Vardan ARUTIUNIAN Open the ORCID record for Vardan ARUTIUNIAN [Opens in a new window]  and
Anastasiya LOPUKHINA
Vardan ARUTIUNIAN*
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Brain, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
Anastasiya LOPUKHINA
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Brain, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Vinogradov Institute of Russian Language, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
*
*Corresponding author: Vardan Arutiunian, Center for Language and Brain, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., 105066Moscow, Russia. E-mail: vardan.arutyunyan89@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how phonological neighborhood density (PND) affects word production and recognition in 4-to-6-year-old Russian children in comparison to adults. Previous experiments with English-speaking adults showed that a dense neighborhood facilitated word production but inhibited recognition whereas a sparse neighborhood inhibited production but facilitated recognition. Importantly, these effects are not universal because a reverse PND pattern was found in Spanish-speaking adults. Probably, PND effects depend on the morphological properties of language.

This study focuses on PND effects in word production and recognition in terms of facilitation and inhibition in Russian. Our results are consistent with those in Spanish: Russian-speaking adults produced words with dense neighborhoods more slowly and recognized them faster than words with sparse neighborhoods. Russian children showed the same PND effect in recognition and no effect was found in production. The findings support the hypothesis that PND effects in word production and recognition are influenced by the morphological system of language.

Keywords

phonological neighborhood densityword productionword recognitionRussian children
Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , November 2020 , pp. 1244 - 1262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

References

Akinina, Yu., Grabovskaya, M., Vechkaeva, A., Ignatyev, G., Isaev, D., & Khanova, A. (2016). Biblioteka psiholingvisticheskih stimulov: novye dannye dlja russkogo i tatarskogo jazyka. In Aleksandrov, Yu. & Anokhin, K. (Eds.), The Seventh International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 93–95). Moscow: Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Alexeeva, S.V., Slioussar, N.A., & Chernova, D.A. (2016). Stimulstat: a database for linguistic and psychological studies on Russian language. In Aleksandrov, Yu. & Anokhin, K. (Eds.), The Seventh International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 23–24). Moscow: Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Altmann, G.T.M., & Kamide, Y. (2004). Now you see it, now you do not: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 347–386). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Anglin, J.M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10).10.2307/1166112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babyonyshev, M. (1993). Acquisition of the Russian case system. MIT working papers in linguistics, 19, 1–43.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B.M., & Walker, S.C. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, M.H., & Hendricks, C. (2012). Basic language comprehension and production in >100,000 young children from sixteen developing nations. Journal of Child Language, 39, 899–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chita-Tegmark, M., Arunachalam, S., Nelson, C.A., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2015). Eye-Tracking Measurements of Language Processing: Developmental Differences in Children at High Risk for ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 3327–3338.10.1007/s10803-015-2495-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cycowicz, Y., Friedman, D., Rothstein, M., & Snodgrass, J. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, E., & Szczerbiński, M. (2006). Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language, 33, 559–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G.S., Chang, F., & Griffin, Z.M. (1999). Connectionist models of language production: lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science, 23, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, S., & Frauenfelder, U.H. (2010). Phonological neighbourhood effects in French spoken-word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris-Trimble, A., & McMurray, B. (2013). Test-retest reliability of eye tracking in the visual world paradigm for the study of real-time spoken word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1328–1345.10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0145)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A.L., & Marchman, V.A. (2008). Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In Sekerina, I.A., Fernández, E.M., & Clahsen, H. (Eds.), Developmental Psycholinguistics. On-line methods in children's language processing (pp. 97–136). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lald.44.06ferCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagarina, N., & Voeikova, M.D. (2009). Acquisition of case and number in Russian. In Stephany, U., Voeikova, M.D. (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 179–251). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.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, 468–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
German, D., & Newman, R.S. (2004). The impact of lexical factors on children's word finding errors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 624–636.10.1044/1092-4388(2004/048)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granlund, S., Kolak, J., Vihman, V., Engelmann, F., Lieven, E.V.M, Pine, J.M., Theakston, A.L., & Ambridge, B. (2019). Language-general and language-specific phenomena in the acquisition of inflectional noun morphology: A cross-linguistic elicited-production study of Polish, Finnish and Estonian. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 169–194.10.1016/j.jml.2019.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieco-Calub, T.M., Saffran, J.R., & Litovsky, R.Y. (2009). Spoken Word Recognition in Toddlers Who Use Cochlear Implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1390–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, M.K., Storkel, H., & Bontempo, D.E. (2019). The effect of neighborhood density on children's word learning in noise. Journal of Child Language, 46, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, T., & Brown, H. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighborhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, J.R., Strokel, H.L., & Hogan, T.P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 100–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huetting, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A.S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado, N., Marchman, V.A., & Fernald, A. (2007). Spoken word recognition by Latino children learning Spanish as their first language. Journal of Child Language, 34, 227–249.10.1017/S0305000906007896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivanova, M., Dragoy, O., Akinina, J., Soloukhina, O., Iskra, E., Khudyakova, M., & Akhutina, T. (2016). AutoRAT at your fingertips: Introducing the new Russian Aphasia Test on tablet. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: 54th Annual Academy of Aphasia Meeting.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, N., Nikolaev, A., & Kidd, E. (2012). The effect of frequency and phonological neighbourhood density on the acquisition of past tense verbs by Finnish children. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiselev, S., Espy, K.A., & Sheffield, T. (2009). Age-related differences in reaction time task performance in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 150–166.10.1016/j.jecp.2008.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornilov, S.A., Rakhlin, N.V., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2012). Morphology and Developmental Language Disorders: New Tools for Russian. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 371–387.Google Scholar
Ladinskaya, N., Chrabaszcz, A., & Lopukhina, A. (2019). Acquisition of Russian Nominal Case Inflections by Monolingual Children: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Working papers of NRU HSE, Series ERP “Linguistics”, 18, 1–12.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.10.1017/S0140525X99001776CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyashevskaya, O.N., & Sharoff, S.A. (2009). Chastotny slovar sovremennogo russkogo yazika (na materialah Nacionalnogo korpusa russkogo yazika). Moscow: Azbukovnik, 1090 pp.Google Scholar
Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing, 19, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüdecke, D. (2017). sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. R Package Version 2.3.3. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J.L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J.L., & Walley, A.C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In Metsala, J.L. & Ehri, L.C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newman, R., & German, D. (2002). Effects of lexical factors on lexical access among typical language-learning children and children with word-finding difficulties. Language & Speech, 45, 285–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, J. (2001). Contrast Dispersion and Russian Palatalization. In Hume, E.V. & Johnson, K. (Eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology (pp. 187–218). Academic Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ragnarsdóttir, H., Simonsen, H., & Plunkett, K. (1999). The acquisition of past tense morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian children: an experimental study. Journal of Child Language, 26, 577–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rastle, K., Davis, M.H., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L.K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadat, J., Martin, C.D., Costa, A., & Alario, F.-X. (2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savičiūtė, E., Ambridge, B., & Pine, J.M. (2018). The roles of word-form frequency and phonological neighbourhood density in the acquisition of Lithuanian noun morphology. Journal of Child Language, 45, 641–672.10.1017/S030500091700037XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekerina, I.A., & Brooks, P.J. (2007). Eye movements during spoken word recognition in Russian children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 20–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Kleij, S.W., Rispens, J.E., & Scheper, A.R. (2016). The effects of phonotactic probability and neighbourhood density on pseudoword learning in 6- and 7-year-old children. First Language, 36, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Luce, P.A. (2016). Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 7.1–7.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Luce, P.A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408.10.1006/jmla.1998.2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Luce, P.A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Rodríguez, E. (2004). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M.S., & Sommers, M.S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M.S., & Stamer, M.K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M.S. (2002). The Influence of Phonological Similarity Neighborhoods on Speech Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 735–747.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, T. (2011). A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. West Sussex: A John Miley & Sons, 596 pp.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot 2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, M., Friend, J., & Ploetz, D.M. (2008). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on eye movements during reading. Cognition, 107, 685–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeigler, J.C., Muneaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory words recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 779–793.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00006-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeigler, J.C., & Muneaux, M. (2007). Orthographic facilitation and phonological inhibition in spoken word recognition: A developmental study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 75–80.10.3758/BF03194031CrossRefGoogle Scholar