2020
DOI: 10.1111/desc.13050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dual language statistical word segmentation in infancy: Simulating a language‐mixing bilingual environment

Abstract: When learning a new language, learners rarely receive explicit information about word boundaries within fluent speech. Words in speech are not consistently marked by pauses and rarely produced in isolation (Aslin et al., 1996;Brent & Siskind, 2001). Given the lack of explicit cues, how do infants, who are novice language learners, extract words from speech? One possibility is that infants can discover words based on the transitional probabilities across syllables in the speech stream. Syllable-based transition… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, preschool-aged children can accept lexical overlap when it is beneficial for communication, such as when each of two speakers understand different labels as names for the same object (Piccin & Blewitt, 2007;Kalashnikova, et al, 2015). Information that makes clear that the overlapping labels stem from two distinctive languages may also be beneficial (Au & Glusman, 1990;Mitchel & Weiss, 2010;Tsui et al, 2021;Weiss et al, 2009). When children are presented with a novel English label and then later provided a novel Spanish label for the same object, they are more likely to accept the second Spanish label than when both labels for the same object are English labels (Au & Glusman, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, preschool-aged children can accept lexical overlap when it is beneficial for communication, such as when each of two speakers understand different labels as names for the same object (Piccin & Blewitt, 2007;Kalashnikova, et al, 2015). Information that makes clear that the overlapping labels stem from two distinctive languages may also be beneficial (Au & Glusman, 1990;Mitchel & Weiss, 2010;Tsui et al, 2021;Weiss et al, 2009). When children are presented with a novel English label and then later provided a novel Spanish label for the same object, they are more likely to accept the second Spanish label than when both labels for the same object are English labels (Au & Glusman, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to including younger participants, future research would benefit from the use of neurophysiological techniques that have already been successfully used to assess speech segmentation in young infants (e.g., Kidd et al., 2018; Kooijman et al., 2009; Snijders et al., 2020). While looking times have been used widely in the literature (e.g., Altvater‐Mackensen & Mani, 2013; Thiessen & Erickson, 2013; Tsui et al., 2020), they may not be ideal for comparing performance across modalities. A static photograph is less appealing than a dynamic video, so the segmentation ability in the AO group of infants in this study may have been underestimated since they may have attended auditorily to the stimulus while not looking at the screen, especially in the second test block.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a bilingual environment, everyday language experiences can vary in that learners encounter multiple languages, across changing scenes, and with linguistic variations between languages. Statistical learning theories therefore need to incorporate learners' abilities to deal with multiple, changing, and varied inputs (Benitez et al, 2016Byers-Heinlein, 2014;Poepsel & Weiss, 2016;Qian et al, 2012;Tsui et al, 2021;Weiss et al, 2009Weiss et al, , 2020. In this paper, we provide a test of adults' statistical word learning from bilingual input by investigating how a linguistic cue (lexical tone) differentiating two languages and learners' language experience affect word learning.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%