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 Englishspeaking adults, 7-8 year-olds, and 10-11 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 multi-speaker 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 utilise speaker variability when learning words in a new language.Learning early stages of word learning (~14 months). A surprising finding is that even if infants have apparently mastered a particular phoneme contrast in their native language they may have difficulties learning novel words which differ only in this contrast. For example, Stager and Werker (1997) found that although 14-month-olds could discriminate /b/ and /d/, they could not successfully differentiate the novel minimal pair words /bɪ/ and /dɪ/ in a word learning context. This effect has been demonstrated many times (see Werker & Curtin, 2005, for a review). (2009) demonstrated that when the novel minimal pair words (/buk/ and /puk/ in their study) were spoken by multiple speakers, infants of the same age were successful in mapping each novel minimal-pair word onto a novel object. Further studies and computational modelling suggest that this difference is due to the fact that when the words are spoken by a single speaker, consistent cues from that speaker become associated with the object and this occurs at the expense of phonetically relevant cues (Apfelbaum & McMurray, 2011;Rost & McMurray, 2010; cf. Galle et al., 2015, for evidence that the benefit of variability does not rely on multiple speakers per se, since similar effects are seen from a single speaker who deliberately varies mean pitch, pitch contour, and duration of word tokens). Note that this account assumes that word learning is an associative process in which even linguistically irrelevant cues may be incorporated into lexical representations, at least in the early stages of learning. Critically, however, Rost and McMurrayThere is also evidence that speaker variability may benefit word learning in older children. Richtsmeier et al. (2009) taught 4-year old English-speaking children novel English nonce words (i.e., adhering to English phonology and phonotactics) associated with novel animal 5pictures. Words that had been presented in multiple voices were later repeated faster and more accurately than words that had been ...

Background: Familiar collocations (e.g., "it's alright") are an important part of everyday conversation. Such word combinations are often retained in speakers with Broca's aphasia. However, only few investigations have studied the forms and functions of familiar collocations available to speakers with Broca's aphasia. Aims: We first apply a frequency-based perspective to word combinations produced by speakers with Broca's aphasia and their conversation partners (CPs), and compare the frequency characteristics of word combinations in dyadic and non-dyadic speech. Second, we investigate the conversational functions of one prominent familiar collocation, "I don't know" (IDK). Methods & Procedures: In the first analysis, speech samples from interactions of nine dyads (each a speaker with Broca's aphasia and their CP) were examined. Non-dyadic samples were selected from 39 speakers with Broca's aphasia from AphasiaBank (MacWhinney et al., 2011). The Frequency in Language Analysis Tool (FLAT; Zimmerer & Wibrow, 2015) was used to estimate collocation strength (the degree of association between words in a combination) of well-formed bigrams (two-word combinations) and trigrams (three-word combinations). The second analysis presents a qualitative investigation of uses of IDK in dyadic exchanges. Outcomes & Results: Analysis 1 revealed that residual trigrams in Broca's aphasia were more strongly collocated in comparison to language produced by CPs. There was no difference in frequency-based profiles between dyadic and non-dyadic aphasic speech. Analysis 2 indicated that speakers with Broca's aphasia and CPs used IDK to achieve a variety of communicative functions. However, patterns specific to each participant group were found. Conclusions: These findings highlight that frequency-based analysis is useful in explaining residual, grammatically well-formed word combinations in Broca's aphasia. This study provides evidence that IDK can aid turn construction in aphasia.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by higher standards of scientific evidence, increased interest in open practices, and promotion of transparency. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Currently, the impact of integrating an open and reproducible approach into the curriculum on student outcomes is not well articulated in the literature. Therefore, in this paper, we provide the first comprehensivereview of how integrating open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning may impact students, using a large-scale, collaborative, team-science approach. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship may impact: (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). Our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship in this area.

No abstract

Acquiring a non-native speech contrast is often difficult. High variability phonetic training (HVPT) is a well-established method used to train learners on non-native phoneme contrasts: it critically uses high variability (HV) input after earlier studies using low variability (LV) input had proved unsuccessful. HVPT has since been successfully applied in many different studies with adult participants, but much less so with children. The current study further investigates the effect of input variability on phonetic training for children, examining whether, like adults previously, they show a HV benefit. In a two-week training study, 58 Dutch 7-year-olds and 51 Dutch 11-year-olds were trained on Standard Southern British English vowel contrasts using either HV (multiple talkers) or LV (single talker) input. Both groups improved in training, however, contrary to the idea of a plasticity benefit for younger learners, only the 11-year-olds showed evidence of generalization i.e. improvement on pre/post-tests with unfamiliar talkers, with Bayes Factors showing null evidence for 7-year-olds. Critically, there was no evidence that 11-year-olds showed greater generalization following HV input, with evidence for the null in some tests. Results are discussed in terms of difficulties of the training and testing tasks and possible interactions with the benefits of input variability.