Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:42:35.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fourteen-month-olds’ sensitivity to acoustic salience in minimal pair word learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2018

Stephanie L. ARCHER  and
Suzanne CURTIN
Stephanie L. ARCHER*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta
Suzanne CURTIN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: slarcher@ualberta.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the first two years of life, infants concurrently refine native-language speech categories and word learning skills. However, in the Switch Task, 14-month-olds do not detect minimal contrasts in a novel object–word pairing (Stager & Werker, 1997). We investigate whether presenting infants with acoustically salient contrasts (liquids) facilitates success in the Switch Task. The first two experiments demonstrate that acoustic differences boost infants’ detection of contrasts. However, infants cannot detect the contrast when the segments are digitally shortened. Thus, not all minimal contrasts are equally difficult, and the acoustic properties of a contrast matter in word learning.

Keywords

First Language AcquisitionWord LearningSpeech Perception
Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , September 2018 , pp. 1198 - 1211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Archer, S. L., Ference, J. D., & Curtin, S. (2014). 14-month olds succeed at learning minimal pairs in stressed syllables. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 110–22.Google Scholar
Archer, S. L., Zamuner, T., Engel, K., Fais, L., & Curtin, S. (2016). Infants’ discrimination of consonants: interplay between word position and acoustic saliency. Language Learning and Development, 12(1), 60–78.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.29) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. B., Atkinson, D. J., & Chaput, H. H. (2004). Habit X: a new program for obtaining and organizing data in infant perception and cognition studies (Version 1.0). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Curtin, S. (2011). Do newly formed word representations encode non-criterial information? Journal of Child Language, 38(4), 904–17.Google Scholar
Curtin, S., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2011). Bilingual beginnings as a lens for theory development: PRIMIR in focus. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 492–504.Google Scholar
Curtin, S., Fennell, C. T., & Escudero, P. (2009). Weighting of acoustic cues explains patterns of word–object associative learning. Developmental Science, 12, 725–31.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. C., Liberman, A. M., & Cooper, F. S. (1955). Acoustic loci and transitional cues for consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 769–73.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171(968), 303–6.Google Scholar
Fennell, C. T., & Waxman, S. (2010). What paradox? Referential cues allow for infant use of phonetic detail in word learning. Child Development, 81(5), 1376–83.Google Scholar
Fennell, C. T., & Werker, J. F. (2003). Early word learners’ ability to access phonetic detail in well-known words. Language and Speech, 46, 245–64.Google Scholar
Hollich, G. (2005). Supercoder: a program for coding preferential looking (Version 1.5) [Computer Software]. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Hollich, G., Jusczyk, P., & Luce, P. (2002). Lexical neighbourhood effects in 17-month-old word learning. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 314–23). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show facilitation for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9, 13–21.Google Scholar
Lacerda, F. (1993). Sonority contrasts dominate young infants’ vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 2372.Google Scholar
Lacerda, F. (1994). The asymmetric structure of the infant's perceptual vowel space. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3016.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, H., Curtin, S., & Graham, S. A. (2012). 12-month-olds’ phonotactic knowledge guides their word–object mapping. Child Development, 83, 1129–36.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, H., Graham, S. A., & Curtin, S. (2011). 12-month-olds privilege words over other linguistic sounds in an associative learning task. Developmental Science, 14, 249–55.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, H., Graham, S. A., Curtin, S., & Archer, S. L. (2014). The flexibility of 12-month-olds' preferences for phonologically appropriate object labels. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 422–30.Google Scholar
May, L., & Werker, J. F. (2014). Can a click be a word? Infants’ learning of non-native words. Infancy, 19(3), 281–300.Google Scholar
Narayan, C. R., Werker, J. F., & Beddor, P. S. (2010). The interaction between acoustic salience and language experience in developmental speech perception: evidence from nasal place discrimination. Developmental Science, 13(3), 407–20.Google Scholar
Pater, J., Stager, C., & Werker, J. F. (2004). The perceptual acquisition of phonological contrasts. Language, 80, 384–402.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Werker, J. F. (1994). Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 421–35.Google Scholar
Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–2.Google Scholar
Storkel, H., & Rogers, M. (2000). The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 407–25.Google Scholar
Thiessen, E. D. (2007). The effect of distributional information on children's use of phonemic contrasts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 16–34.Google Scholar
Thiessen, E. D., & Yee, M. N. (2010). Dogs, bogs, labs, and lads: what phonemic generalizations indicate about the nature of children's early word-form representations. Child Development, 81(4), 1287–303.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Seidl, A. (2015). The learnability of phonotactic patterns in onset and coda positions. Language Learning and Development, 11(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Cohen, L. B., Lloyd, V. L., Casasola, M., & Stager, C. L. (1998). Acquisition of word–object associations by 14-month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1289–309.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: a developmental framework of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Development, 1, 197–234.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Fennell, C. T., Corcoran, K. M., & Stager, C. (2002). Infants’ ability to learn phonetically similar words: effects of age and vocabulary size. Infancy, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.Google Scholar
Yoshida, K. A., Fennell, C. T., & Swingley, D. (2009). Fourteen-month-old infants learn similar-sounding words. Developmental Science, 12, 412–18.Google Scholar
Zamuner, T. S. (2006). Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy, 10, 77–95.Google Scholar