Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:15:43.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early language experience and underspecified phonological representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Cynthia R. Hunter  and
David B. Pisoni
Cynthia R. Hunter
Affiliation:
Indiana University
David B. Pisoni
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking as a premise that phonological working memory (PWM) influences later language development, in their keynote article, Pierce, Genesee, Delcenserie, and Morgan aim to specify the relations between early language input and the development of PWM in terms of separable influences of timing, quantity, and quality of early language input. We concur that prior work has established that PWM and language development have reciprocal influences on one another during development (e.g., Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Gathercole, 2006; Gathercole, Hitch, Service, & Martin, 1997; Metsala & Chisolm, 2010). The goal of the keynote article was to describe how early language experience may influence the development of PWM. Pierce et al. argue that this can be done by comparing the development of PWM across groups of children with differing language experiences during early childhood, specifically (a) delayed exposure to language, (b) impoverished language input, or (c) enriched language input. The authors suggest that this comparison may contribute to establishing that individual differences in PWM are due, in part, to early language experience. Sensitive periods for phonological development that are open roughly in the first year of life are discussed, and it is suggested that the quantity and quality of early language input shapes the quality of phonological representations. Efforts to specify mechanisms by which early language input may influence the development of PWM have both theoretical and, potentially, clinical importance. Considering this, Pierce et al.’s article, which aims to create a platform for future research in terms of the timing, quantity, and quality of early language input, is a valuable contribution.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 1325 - 1329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casserly, E. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (2013). Nonword repetition as a predictor of long-term speech and language skills in children with cochlear implants. Otology and Neurotology, 34, 460–470.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, M., & Peng, S. C. (2008). Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hearing Research, 235, 143–156.Google Scholar
Dettman, S. J., Pinder, D., Briggs, R. J., Dowell, R. C., & Leigh, J. R. (2007). Communication development in children who receive the cochlear implant younger than 12 months: Risks versus benefits. Ear and Hearing, 28, 11S–18S.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G. J., Service, E., & Martin, A. J. (1997). Phonologial short-term memory and new word learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 966–979.Google Scholar
Kral, A., Kronenberger, W. G., Pisoni, D. B., & O'Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: A connectome model. Lancet Neurology, 15, 610–621.Google Scholar
Kronenberger, W. G., Colson, B. G., Henning, S. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (2014). Executive functioning and speech-language skills following long-term use of cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19, 456–470.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.Google Scholar
Metsala, J. L., & Chisholm, G. M. (2010). The influence of lexical status and neighborhood density on children's nonword repetition, Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 489–506.Google Scholar
Niparko, J. K., Tobey, E. A., Thal, D. J., Eisenberg, L. S., Wang, N. Y., Quittner, A. L., . . . CDaCI Investigative Team. (2010). Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 1498–1506.Google Scholar
Pierce, L. J., Genesee, F., Delcenserie, A., & Morgan, G. (2017). Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1265–1302.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., & Cleary, M. (2003). Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation, Ear and Hearing, 24 (1 Suppl.), 106S–120S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisoni, D. B., Cleary, M., Geers, A. E., & Tobey, E. A. (1999). Individual differences in effectiveness of cochlear implants in children who are prelingually deaf: New process measures of performance. Volta Review, 101, 111.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., & Geers, A. E. (2000). Working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants: Correlations between digit span and measures of spoken language processing. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 185 (Suppl.), 92.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303–304.Google Scholar
Wright, R., Frisch, S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Speech perception. In Webster, J. G. (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering (Vol. 20, pp. 175–195). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar