To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s phonological neighborhoods Yao Yao @berkeley.edu 2009-1-11 1 YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Dec 19, 2015
To learn or not to learn: The growing paths of children’s
phonological neighborhoods
Yao Yao @berkeley.edu2009-1-11
1YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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).
3YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
cat
kit
mat
cap
map
cape
mop
it
Evidence for PN
• Speech perception– Inhibitory effect (Luce & Pisoni, 1998)
• Speech production– Facilitative effect (Vitevitch, 2002)– Hyperarticulation (Munson & Solomon, 2004)
4YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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?
5YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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 6
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 7
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 8
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
9YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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
10YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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 11
Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in children’s networks
• Size
13YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
• Average density
• Two children’s data overlayed (with Joel’s shifted by 2 stages)
14YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Joel is probably more advanced than Ruth by 2 stages.
Joel is probably more advanced than Ruth by 2 stages.
Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in children’s networks
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 15
Study 1: size and average density of 3-phoneme words in the local network
• Neighborhood density relative to vocabulary size
16YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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
17YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Study 2: neighborhood density of the same 3-phoneme words in TL
– Neighborhood densities in CL and TL are partially correlated (corr <0.4)
18YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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
19YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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 20
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
Old/ Retained New
Lost
S1 lexicon S2 lexicon
21YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept?
• Average local density of 3-phoneme new vs. old words
22YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept?
• Average local density of 3-phoneme lost vs. retained words
23YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept?
• Before• Avg. density = 2
24YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
• After• Avg. density =
(4+6)*2/7=2.85
Study 3: What words are acquired, lost and kept?
• Average density of 3-phoneme lost, new and old/retained words in the target language
25YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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
26YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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
27YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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 28
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)
29YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009
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 30
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 31
Acknowledgement
Child subjectsThe Manchester CorpusCHILDES databaseProf. Susanne GahlProf. Keith JohnsonAudience at the Berkeley Phonology Phorum
YY @ LSA Annual Meeting 2009 32
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 33
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 34