Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

THE ROLE OF INPUT VARIABILITY AND LEARNER AGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY LEARNING

  • Ruta Sinkeviciute (a1), Helen Brown (a2), Gwen Brekelmans (a1) and Elizabeth Wonnacott (a1)

Abstract

Input variability is key in many aspects of linguistic learning, yet variability increases input complexity, which may cause difficulty in some learning contexts. The current work investigates this trade-off by comparing speaker variability effects on L2 vocabulary learning in different age groups. Existing literature suggests that speaker variability benefits L2 vocabulary learning in adults, but this may not be the case for younger learners. In this study native English-speaking adults, 7- to 8-year-olds, and 10- to 11-year-olds learned six novel Lithuanian words from a single speaker, and six from eight speakers. In line with previous research, adults showed better production of the multispeaker items at test. No such benefit was found for either group of children, either in production or comprehension. Children also had greater difficulties in processing multiple-speaker cues during training. We conclude that age-related capacity limitations may constrain the ability to utilize speaker variability when learning words in a new language.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth Wonnacott, Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. E-mail: e.wonnacott@ucl.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number: ES/K013637/1, awarded to EW and HB). We would like to thank the Lithuanian speakers who agreed to lend their voices for the stimuli preparation as well as Agne Sinkeviciute for pilot testing.

The experiment in this article earned an Open Data badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://osf.io/2vec3/.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuo-spatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77, 16981716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x.
Apfelbaum, K. S., & McMurray, B. (2011). Using variability to guide dimensional weighting: Associative mechanisms in early word learning. Cognitive Science, 35, 11051138. https://doi.rog/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01181.x.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Barcroft, J. (2001). Acoustic variation and lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 563590. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00168.
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387414. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050175.
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2014). Effects of variability in fundamental frequency on L2 vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 423449. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263113000582.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 255278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Version 6.0.36. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 977985. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206911.
Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A. (2006). The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 185209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060243.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425455. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111.
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386404. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(82)90054-6.
Children’s Printed Word Database. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/cpwd/.
Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Language and Speech, 47, 207239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470030101.
Creel, S. C., & Bregman, M. R. (2011). How talker identity relates to language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 190204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00276.x.
Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781.
Dienes, Z. (2015). How Bayesian statistics are needed to determine whether mental states are unconscious. In Overgaard, M. (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (pp. 199220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0012.
Galle, M., Apfelbaum, K., & McMurray, B. (2015). The role of single talker acoustic variation in early word learning. Language Learning and Development, 11, 6679. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.895249.
Giannakopoulou, A., Brown, H., Clayards, M., & Wonnacott, E. (2017). High or low? Comparing high- and low-variability phonetic training in adult and child second language learners. PeerJ, 5, e3209. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3209.
Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 152162. doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.17.1.152.
Gomez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431436. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00476.
Henderson, L. M., Weighall, A., Brown, H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2013). On-line lexical competition during spoken word recognition and word learning in children and adults. Child Development, 84, 16681685. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12067.
Iverson, P., Pinet, M., & Evans, B. G. (2012). Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 145160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000300.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4.
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 12421255. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408177.
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874886. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1894649.
Martin, C. S., Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Summers, W. V. (1989). Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 676684. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.676.
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 6164. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061.
Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365378. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.397688.
Newman, R. S. (2008). The level of detail in infants’ word learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 229232. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8721.2008.00580.x.
Nusbaum, H. C., & Morin, T. M. (1992). Paying attention to differences among talkers. In Tohkura, Y., Sagisaka, Y., & Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (Eds.), Speech perception, speech production, and linguistic structure (pp. 113134). Tokyo, Japan: OHM.
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1991). U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perceptron: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition, 38, 43102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90022-V.
Pruitt, J. S. (1993). Comments on ‘Training Japanese listeners to identify /r/ and /l/: A first report’ [Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., and Pisoni, D. B., Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874886 (1991)]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1146–1147. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.406962.
Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002.
Ramscar, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2013). Production, comprehension, and synthesis: A communicative perspective on language. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00233.
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., & Thorpe, K. (2010). The effects of feature label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 909957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01092.x.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
Richtsmeier, P. T., Gerken, L., Goffman, L., & Hogan, T. (2009). Statistical frequency in perception affects children’s lexical production. Cognition, 111, 372377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.009.
Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (2009). Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning. Developmental Science, 12, 339349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00786.x.
Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (2010). Finding the signal by adding noise: The role of noncontrastive phonetic variability in early word learning. Infancy, 15, 608635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00033.x.
Ryalls, B. O., & Pisoni, D. B. (1997). The effect of talker variability on word recognition in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 441452. doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.3.441.
Sadakata, M., & McQueen, J. (2013). High stimulus variability in non-native speech learning supports formation of abstract categories: Evidence from Japanese geminates. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 134, 13241335. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812767.
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 231249. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716407070129.
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2011). Indexical information, encoding difficulty, and second language vocabulary learning. Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 417434. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716410000469.
Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381382. https://doi.org/10.1038/41102.
Statistical Office of the European Communities [Eurostat]. (2015). EUROSTAT: Regional statistics: Foreign language learning. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Strange, W., & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r-l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 131145. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202673.
Wells, J. C. (1997). SAMPA computer readable phonetic alphabet. In Gibbon, D., Moore, R., and Winski, R. (Eds.), Handbook of standards and resources for spoken language systems (Vol. 4; pp. 60108). Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Werker, J. F., & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: A developmental framework of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Development, 1, 197234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2005.9684216.
Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J. K., Thomson, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in 5 year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.004.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed