Prosody outweighs statistics in 6-month-old German-learning infants' speech segmentation.
Journal
Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
ISSN: 1532-7078
Titre abrégé: Infancy
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100890607
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 May 2024
04 May 2024
Historique:
medline:
5
5
2024
pubmed:
5
5
2024
entrez:
4
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
It is well established that infants use various cues to find words within fluent speech from about 7 to 8 months of age. Research suggests that two main mechanisms support infants' speech segmentation: prosodic cues like the word stress patterns, and distributional cues like transitional probabilities (TPs). We tested 6-month-old German-learning infants' use of prosodic and statistical cues for speech segmentation in three experiments. In Experiment 1, infants were familiarized with an artificial language string where TPs signaled either word boundaries or iambic words-a stress pattern that is disfavored in German. Experiment 2 was a control and only the test phase was presented. In Experiment 3, prosodic cues were absent in the string and only TPs signaled word boundaries. All experiments included the same conditions at test: disyllabic words with high TPs in the string, words with low TPs and words with non-co-occurring syllables. Results showed that infants relied more strongly on prosodic cues than on TPs for word segmentation. Notably, no segmentation evidence emerged when prosodic cues were absent in the string. This finding underlines early impacts of language-specific structural properties on segmentation mechanisms.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
ID : 641858
Organisme : H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
ID : 748909
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : 317633480
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Infancy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Congress of Infant Studies.
Références
Abboub, N., Boll‐Avetisyan, N., Bhatara, A., Höhle, B., & Nazzi, T. (2016). An exploration of rhythmic grouping of speech sequences by French‐ and German‐learning infants. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00292
Abboub, N., Nazzi, T., & Gervain, J. (2016). Prosodic grouping at birth. Brain and Language, 162, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.002
Aslin, R., Saffran, J., & Newport, E. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8‐month‐old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9280.00063
Bhatara, A., Boll‐Avetisyan, N., Unger, A., Nazzi, T., & Höhle, B. (2013). Native language affects rhythmic grouping of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 3828–3843. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4823848
Bion, R., Benavides‐Varela, S., & Nespor, M. (2011). Acoustic markers of prominence influence infants’ and adults’ segmentation of speech sequences. Language and Speech, 54(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910388018
Black, A., & Bergmann, C. (2017). Quantifying infants' statistical word segmentation: A meta‐analysis. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 124–129). Cognitive Science Society.
Boll‐Avetisyan, N., Bhatara, A., Unger, A., Nazzi, T., & Höhle, B. (2016). Effects of experience with L2 and music on rhythmic grouping by French listeners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728915000425
Brent, M., & Cartwright, T. (1996). Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition, 61(1–2), 93–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(96)00719‐6
Cliff, N. (1996). Answering ordinal questions with ordinal data using ordinal statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3103_4
Delattre, P. (1963). Comparing the prosodic features of English, German, Spanish and French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1(3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1963.1.1.193
Dogil, G., & Williams, B. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 273–334). de Gruyter.
Dutoit, T., Pagel, V., Pierret, N., Bataille, F., & van der Vrecken, O. (1996). The MBROLA project: Towards a set of high quality speech synthesizers free of use for non commercial purposes. In Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on spoken language processing. ICSLP '96, Philadelphia, PA, USA (Vol. 3, pp. 1393–1396). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSLP.1996.607874
Endress, A., & Mehler, J. (2009). Primitive computations in speech processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902783646
Friederici, A., Friedrich, M., & Christophe, A. (2007). Brain responses in 4‐month‐old infants are already language specific. Current Biology, 17(14), 1208–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.011
Gebhart, A., Newport, E., & Aslin, R. (2009). Statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies among nonlinguistic sounds. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 486–490. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.486
Gervain, J., & Guevara, E. (2012). The statistical signature of morphosyntax: A study of Hungarian and Italian infant‐directed speech. Cognition, 125(2), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.010
Gervain, J., Nespor, M., Mazuka, R., Horie, R., & Mehler, J. (2008). Bootstrapping word order in prelexical infants: A Japanese‐Italian cross‐linguistic study. Cognitive Psychology, 57(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.001
Graf, E., & Lew‐Williams, C. (2015). Listening through voices: Infant statistical word segmentation across multiple speakers. Developmental Psychology, 51(11), 1517–1528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039725
Hay, J., & Diehl, R. (2007). Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the Iambic/Trochaic Law. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194458
Hay, J., & Saffran, J. (2012). Rhythmic grouping biases constrain infant statistical learning. Infancy, 17(6), 610–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532‐7078.2011.00110.x
Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Nelson, D., Jusczyk, P., Cassidy, K., Druss, B., & Kennedy, L. (1987). Clauses are perceptual units for young infants. Cognition, 26(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(87)80002‐1
Hoareau, M., Yeung, H., & Nazzi, N. (2019). Infants’ statistical word segmentation in an artificial language is linked to both parental speech input and reported production abilities. Developmental Science, 22(4), e12803. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12803
Höhle, B. (2002). Der Einstieg in die Grammatik: Die Rolle der Phonologie/Syntax‐Schnittstelle für Sprachverarbeitung und Spracherwerb. Habilitationsschrift Freie Universität Berlin.
Höhle, B., Bijeljiac‐Babic, R., Herold, B., Weissenborn, J., & Nazzi, T. (2009). Language specific prosodic preferences during the first half year of life: Evidence from German and French infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(3), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.03.004
Höhle, B., Pauen, S., Hesse, V., & Weissenborn, J. (2014). Discrimination of rhytmic pattern at 4 months and language performance at 5 years: A longitudinal analysis of data from German‐learning children. Language Learning, 64(s2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12075
Hunter, M., Ames, E., & Koopman, R. (1983). Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.19.3.338
Iversen, J., Patel, A., & Ohgushi, K. (2008). Perception of rhythmic grouping depends on auditory experience. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(4), 2263–2271. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2973189
Johnson, E., & Jusczyk, P. (2001). Word segmentation by 8‐month‐olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2755
Johnson, E., & Seidl, A. (2009). At 11 months, prosody still outranks statistics. Developmental Science, 12(1), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2008.00740.x
Johnson, E., & Tyler, M. (2010). Testing the limits of statistical learning for word segmentation. Developmental Science, 13(2), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2009.00886.x
Junge, C., Kooijman, V., Hagoort, P., & Cutler, A. (2012). Rapid recognition at 10 months as a predictor of language development. Developmental Science, 15(4), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2012.1144.x
Jusczyk, P., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. (1993). Infants' preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64(3), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.1993.tb02935.x
Jusczyk, P., Hohne, E., & Bauman, A. (1999). Infants’ sensitivity to allophonic cues for word segmentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(8), 1465–1476. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213111
Jusczyk, P., Houston, D., & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English‐learning infants. Cognitive Psychology, 39(3–4), 159–207. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0716
Kassambara, A. (2023). rstatix: Pipe‐friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package. Retrieved from https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/rstatix/
Kirkham, N., Slemmer, J., & Johnson, S. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83(2), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(02)00004‐5
Kohler, K. J. (2012). The perception of lexical stress in German: Effects of segmental duration and vowel quality in different prosodic patterns. Phonetica, 69(1–2), 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342126
Kooijjman, V., Hagoort, P., & Cutler, A. (2009). Prosodic structure in early word segmentation: ERP evidence from Dutch ten‐month‐olds. Infancy, 14(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000903263957
Kuijpers, C., Coolen, R., Houston, D., & Cutler, A. (1998). Using the head‐turning technique to explore cross‐linguistic performance differences. In C. Rovee‐Collier, L. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (pp. 205–220). Ablex.
Langus, A., Marchetto, E., Bion, R., & Nespor, M. (2012). Can prosody be used to discover hierarchical structure in continuous speech? Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.004
Langus, A., Seyed‐Allaei, S., Uysal, E., Pirmoradian, S., Marino, C., Asaadi, S., Eren, Ö, Toro, J. M., Peña, M., Bion, R. A., & Nespor, M. (2016). Listening natively across perceptual domains? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(7), 1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/Xlm0000226
Mair, P., & Wilcox, R. (2020). Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behavior Research Methods, 52(2), 464–488. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐019‐01246‐w
Marimon, M., Höhle, B., & Langus, A. (2022). Pupillary entrainment reveals individual differences in cue weighting in 9‐month‐old German‐learning infants. Cognition, 224, 105054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105054
Mattys, S., & Jusczyk, P. (2001). Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants. Cognition, 78(2), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(00)00109‐8
Mattys, S., Jusczyk, P., Luce, P., & Morgan, J. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0721
Mersad, K., & Nazzi, T. (2012). When mommy comes to the rescue of statistics: Infants combine top‐down and bottom‐up cues to segment speech. Language Learning and Development, 8(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.609106
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J., & Saffran, J. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8‐month‐old infants. Child Development, 80(3), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2009.01290.x
Roder, B., Bushnell, E., & Sasseville, A. (2000). Infants’ preferences for familiarity and novelty during the course of visual processing. Infancy, 1, 491–508.
Rubertus, E., & Noiray, A. (2018). On the development of gestural organization: A cross‐sectional study of vowel‐to‐vowel anticipatory coarticulation. PLoS One, 13(9), e0203562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203562
Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8‐month‐olds. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
Saffran, J., Newport, E., & Aslin, R. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0032
Saksida, A., Langus, A., & Nespor, M. (2017). Co‐occurrence statistics as a language dependent cue for speech segmentation. Developmental Science, 20(3), e12390. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12390
Segal, O., & Kison‐Rabin, L. (2016). Evidence for language‐specific influence on the preference of stress patterns in infants learning an Iambic language (Hebrew). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(5), 1329–1341. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2012/11‐0087)
Shukla, M., White, K., & Aslin, R. (2011). Prosody guides the rapid mapping of auditory word forms onto visual objects in 6‐mo‐old infants. PNAS, 108(15), 6038–6043. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017617108
Thiessen, E., & Erickson, L. (2013). Discovering words in fluent speech: The contribution of two kinds of statistical information. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(590), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00590
Thiessen, E., & Saffran, J. (2003). When cues collide: Use of stress and statistical cues to word boundaries by 7‐ to 9‐month‐old infants. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 706–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.39.4.706
Thiessen, E., & Saffran, J. (2007). Learning to learn: Infants’ acquisition of stress‐based strategies for word segmentation. Language Learning and Development, 3(1), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440709337001
Torchiano, M. (2020). effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package version 0.8.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624