1 / 34

To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s phonological neighborhoods

To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s phonological neighborhoods. Yao Yao @berkeley.edu 2009-1-11. Overview. Background Data Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Discussion. Phonological neighborhood (PN). General idea

sora
Download Presentation

To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s phonological neighborhoods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s phonological neighborhoods Yao Yao @berkeley.edu 2009-1-11 YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  2. Overview • Background • Data • Study 1 • Study 2 • Study 3 • Discussion YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  3. Phonological neighborhood (PN) • General idea • The lexicon can be viewed as a network of words, in which similar-sounding words are connected to form phonological neighborhoods. • Defining neighbors • One-phoneme difference rule (Luce & Pisoni, 1998). it kit cape cap cat mop mat map YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  4. Evidence for PN • Speech perception • Inhibitory effect (Luce & Pisoni, 1998) • Speech production • Facilitative effect (Vitevitch, 2002) • Hyperarticulation (Munson & Solomon, 2004) YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  5. Children’s PN development • Start small and sparse (Charles-Luce & Luce, 1990; Logan, 1992; Storkel, 2002) • How do children’s phonological neighborhoods grow? • From the target language (TL) perspective • Early acquired words are short in length, high in frequency and from dense neighborhoods in TL (Storkel, 2004) • From the local child language (CL) perspective • Acquire similar-sounding words? • Acquire dissimilar-sounding words? YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  6. Puzzle • Perceptual abilities • Infants at a very young age can perceive fine phonetic detail (Aslin, Jusczyk & Pisoni, 1998) • Used in word learning ? • Children have difficulty in learning similar-sounding novel words (Stager & Werker, 1997) • Children are sensitive to the phonetic detail in the input. (Zamuner, 2006, 2009; Coady & Aslin, 2003) YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  7. Two models • LRM (Lexical Restructuring Model; Metsala & Walley, 1998) • Holistic lexical representations initially. More detailed phonemic representation is necessitated as the vocabulary grows. • PRIMIR (Processing Rich Information from Multidimensional Interaction Representations; Werker & Curtin, 2005) • “phonetic detail is incorporated into early lexical representations” (Zamuner, 2009:7) YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  8. Examining PN development • If holistic representation… • Acquire dissimilar-sounding words • Avoid dense neighborhoods • If detailed phonetic representation… • Acquire similar-sounding words • Form dense neighborhoods • Influence from the TL YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  9. Database • From the Manchester corpus in CHILDES database (Theakston, et al., 2001; MacWhinney, 1991) • Two monolingual British children • Joel [1;11- 2;10] “word learner“ (Ke & Yao, 2008) • Ruth [2;0 - 2;11] “grammar learner“ (Ke & Yao, 2008) • 1-year longitudinal study • 34 recordings, 1hr each, approx. 1 per 10 days YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  10. Stage division (Ke & Yao, 2008) • 0.5 increase in MLU (Mean Length of Utterance) per stage • 5 recording sessions • 40 days • Non-overlapping • Joel • S1, S2, S3, S4a, S4b, S5 • Ruth • S1, S2, S3a, S3b, S4, S5 YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  11. Network model • Input • Spontaneous speech of the child • Phonetic transcription is obtained from the CELEX database. • No regular inflected forms or contracted forms if the base forms already exist • Neighborhood definition • One-phoneme difference rule YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  12. Preliminary counts YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  13. Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in children’s networks • Average density • Size YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  14. Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in children’s networks • Two children’s data overlayed (with Joel’s shifted by 2 stages) Joel is probably more advanced than Ruth by 2 stages. YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  15. Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in the local network • Q: is the increase in density an artifact of the increase in lexicon size? • Coady & Aslin (2003) • Calculate neighborhood density as a proportion of the entire lexicon, not in raw counts of neighbors. YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  16. Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in the local network • Neighborhood density relative to vocabulary size YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  17. Study 1: Discussion • Absolute number of neighbors increase over time • When lexicon size is normalized, neighborhood density • Increases in Ruth’s early stages • Slightly decreases in Ruth’s late stages and all Joel’s stages YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  18. Study 2: neighborhood density of the same 3-phoneme words in TL • Neighborhood densities in CL and TL are partially correlated (corr <0.4) YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  19. Study 2: Discussion • Average neighborhood density (in adult lexicon) • Increases in Ruth’s early stages • decreases in Ruth’s late stages and all Joel’s stages • Joel’s development is probably two stages more advanced than Ruth YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  20. Study 3 • Assumptions • Word learning as a dynamic process • Acquire words • Lose words • Stage networks represent the lexicon of the child at that stage • Q: What words are acquired, lost, and kept? Hi-density words or low-density words? YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  21. Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept? • New vs. old words • New words: words that don’t exist in the previous lexicon • Old words: words that already exist in the previous lexicon • Lost vs. retained words • Lost words: words that don’t exist in the next lexicon • Retained words: words that still exist in the next lexicon S1 lexicon S2 lexicon Lost Old/ Retained New YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  22. Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept? • Average local density of 3-phoneme new vs. old words YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  23. Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept? • Average local density of 3-phoneme lost vs. retained words YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  24. Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept? • After • Avg. density = (4+6)*2/7=2.85 • Before • Avg. density = 2 YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  25. Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept? • Average density of 3-phoneme lost, new and old/retained words in the target language YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  26. Study 3: Discussion • In Ruth’s early stages • Newly-acquired words are structurally MORE important than existing words • Structurally-important words are MORE susceptible to being lost • In Ruth’s late stages and all Joel’s stages • Newly-acquired words are structurally LESS important than existing words • Structurally-important words are LESS susceptible to being lost YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  27. General Discussion • In early stages of lexical acquisition • acquire words that sound similar to existing ones and increase local density • build up the backbone of the phonological network by adding important nodes • important words are also easier to lose • After that • words that are acquired are less important • important words are less likely to be lost YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  28. Implications • Pressure to form/deform denser neighborhoods coexist in early stages • Perceptual abilities • Probably used from the early stage of word learning PRIMIR model • Stabilize after a while YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  29. Implications • Critical mass hypothesis • after the lexicon exceeds a critical size, qualitative changes in linguistic performance and/or acquisition strategy will take place (Marchman & Bates, 1994) • Critical size • ~200 words • cf. Vogel Sosa & Stoel-Gammon (2006) YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  30. Complications • Token frequency • Neighborhood density in CL is partially correlated with token frequency in child speech (cor < 0.45) and maternal input (cor <0.45) . YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  31. Caveats • Sampling frequency • 5hrs recording spread over ~40 days • Is the stage lexicon a decent representation of the child’s productive lexicon? • Is the division of new/old, lost/retained words fair enough? • Phonological network model • The use of dictionary pronunciation of words • Definition of neighbors • Different types of neighbors YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  32. Acknowledgement Child subjects The Manchester Corpus CHILDES database Prof. Susanne Gahl Prof. Keith Johnson Audience at the Berkeley Phonology Phorum YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  33. Selected references • Aslin, R.N., Jusczyk, P.W. & Pisoni, D.B. (1998). Speech and auditory processing during infancy: constraints on and precursors to language. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (eds), Handbook of child psychology: cognition, perception and language, vol. 2, NY: Wiley. • Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P.A. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of words in young children’s lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17, 205-215. • Coady, J.A. & Aslin, R.N. (2003). Phonological neighborhoods in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language 30, 441-469. • Logan, J.S. (1992). A computational analysis of young children’s lexicons (Tech. Rep. No. 8). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Dept. of Psychology, Indiana Univ. • Luce, P.A. & Pisoni, D.B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood density activation model. Ear and Hearing 19, 1-36. • MacWhinney, B. (1991). The Childes Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . • Marchman, V.A. & Bates, E. (1994) Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical-mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language 21, 339-366. • 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 J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (eds), Word recognition in beginning literacy, 89–120. New York: Erlbaum. YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

  34. Selected references • Munson, B. & Solomon, N.P. (2004) . The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47(5), 1048-1058 • Stager, C.L. & Werker, J.F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature 388, 381-382. • Storkel, H.L. (2002). Restructuring of similarity neighbourhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language 29, 251-274. • Storkel, H.L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexicla acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201-221. • Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28, 127-152. • Vitevitch, . (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28(4), 735–747. • Vogel Sosa, A. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2006). Patterns of intra-word phonological variability during the second year of life. Journal of Child Language 33, 31–50. • Werker, J. F. & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: A developmental framework of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Development 1, 197–234. • Zamuner, T. S. (2006). Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy 10, 77–95. YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009

More Related