Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:47:57.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulating the characteristics of words and nonwords to better understand word learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2006

Michael S. Vitevitch
Michael S. Vitevitch
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The work of Susan Gathercole and others on nonword repetition has increased general interest in the relationship between memory and language, and has provided a fertile theoretical framework for researchers to explore how the language system makes use of the phonological loop, a component in Baddeley's (1986) working memory model. Gathercole (2006) integrated a number of findings from a variety of research methodologies and populations to support this theoretical framework. She also discussed how this framework might be applied to increase our understanding of language disorders characterized by word learning problems. Synthesizing the findings from many and diverse areas of study to formulate a coherent theory is a challenge, but this challenge must be undertaken if we hope to significantly advance our understanding of human behavior, including the differences in processing that are found across the lifespan and across individuals. I admire Gathercole for undertaking this challenge (and the additional challenge of applying the theory to language disorders) in the area of word learning.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 594 - 598
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baddeley A. D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gathercole S. E. 2006. Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship [Keynote]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513– 543.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., Frankish C. R., Pickering S. J., & Peaker S. 1999. Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 84– 95.Google Scholar
Landauer T. D., & Streeter L. A. 1973. Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 119– 131.Google Scholar
Luce P. A., & Large N. R. 2001. Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 565– 581.Google Scholar
Luce P. A., & Pisoni D. B. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1– 36.Google Scholar
Pitt M. A., & Samuel A. G. 1995. Lexical and sublexical feedback in auditory word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 149– 188.Google Scholar
Roodenrys S., & Hinton M. 2002. Sublexical or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 29– 33.Google Scholar
Storkel H. L. 2001. Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1321– 1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel H. L. 2003. Learning new words II: Phonotactic probability in verb learning. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 46, 1312– 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel H. L. 2004. The emerging lexicon of children with phonological delays: Phonotactic constraints and probability in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1194– 1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel H. L., Armbruster J., & Hogan T. P. (in press). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
Storkel H. L., & Rogers M. A. 2000. The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 407– 425.Google Scholar
Thorn A. S. C., & Frankish C. R. 2005. Long-term knowledge effects on serial recall of nonwords are not exclusively lexical. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 729– 735.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S. 2003. The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 487– 499.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., Armbruster J., & Chu S. 2004. Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 514– 529.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., and Luce P. A. 1998. When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychological Science, 9, 325– 329.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., and Luce P. A. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374– 408.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., & Luce P. A. 2004. A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481– 487.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., & Luce P. A. 2005. Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 193– 204.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., Luce P. A., Charles-Luce J., & Kemmerer D. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech, 40, 47– 62.Google Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., Luce P. A., Pisoni D. B., & Auer E. T. 1999. Phonotactics, neighborhood activation and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68, 306– 311.Google Scholar