Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:19:53.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit language learning: Adults' ability to segment words in Norwegian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2010

MEGAN M. KITTLESON ,
JESSICA M. AGUILAR ,
GRY LINE TOKERUD ,
ELENA PLANTE  and
ARVE E. ASBJØRNSEN
MEGAN M. KITTLESON
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
JESSICA M. AGUILAR
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
GRY LINE TOKERUD
Affiliation:
University of Bergen
ELENA PLANTE*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
ARVE E. ASBJØRNSEN
Affiliation:
University of Bergen
*
Address for correspondence: Elena Plante, Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, PO Box 210071, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0071, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous language learning research reveals that the statistical properties of the input offer sufficient information to allow listeners to segment words from fluent speech in an artificial language. The current pair of studies uses a natural language to test the ecological validity of these findings and to determine whether a listener's language background influences this process. In Study 1, the “guessibility” of potential test words from the Norwegian language was presented to 22 listeners who were asked to differentiate between true words and nonwords. In Study 2, 22 adults who spoke one of 12 different primary languages learned to segment words from continuous speech in an implicit language learning paradigm. The task consisted of two sessions, approximately three weeks apart, each requiring participants to listen to 7.2 minutes of Norwegian sentences followed by a series of bisyllabic test items presented in isolation. The participants differentially accepted the Norwegian words and Norwegian-like nonwords in both test sessions, demonstrating the capability to segment true words from running speech. The results were consistent across three broadly-defined language groups, despite differences in participants’ language background.

Keywords

implicit learninglanguagestatistical learningsecond language acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 513 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported in part by NICHD grant 2R01 HD042170 and NIDCD grant R01DC004726.

References

Alt, M., Creusere, M., & Plante, E., (2004). Semantic features in fast-mapping performance of preschoolers with specific language impairment versus preschoolers with normal language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 407–420.10.1044/1092-4388(2004/033)Google Scholar
Alt, M., & Plante, E. (2006). Factors that influence lexical and semantic fast-mapping of young children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 941–954.Google Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.10.1111/1467-9280.00063Google Scholar
Bahl, M., Plante, E., & Gerken, L. A. (2009). Processing prosodic structure by adults with language-based learning disability. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42, 313–323.Google Scholar
Cole, R. A., & Jakimik, J. (1980). Segmenting speech into words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1323–1332.10.1121/1.384185Google Scholar
Curtin, S., Mintz, T. H., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Stress changes the representational landscape: Evidence from word segmentation. Cognition, 96, 233–262.10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.005Google Scholar
Dahan, D., & Brent, M. R. (1999). On the discovery of novel wordlike units from utterances: An artificial-language study with implications for native-language acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 165–185.Google Scholar
Echols, C. H., Crowhurst, M. J., & Childers, J. B. (1997). The perception of rhythmic units in speech by infants and adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 202–225.Google Scholar
Echols, C. H., & Newport, E. L. (1992). The role of stress and position in determining first words. Language Acquisition, 2, 189–220.10.1207/s15327817la0203_1Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (2004). Nine-month-olds extract structural principles required for natural language. Cognition, 93, B89–B96.10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.005Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Pscyhological Science, 13, 431–436.10.1111/1467-9280.00476Google Scholar
Guest, D. J., Dell, G. S., & Cole, J. S. (2000). Violable constraints in language production: Testing the transitivity assumption of Optimality Theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 272–299.10.1006/jmla.1999.2679Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1955). From phoneme to morpheme. Language, 31, 190–222.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1977). On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, L. M. (ed.), Studies in stress and accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), pp. 37–82. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1999). How infants begin to extract words from fluent speech. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 323–328.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Infants’ detection of sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 1–23.10.1006/cogp.1995.1010Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. (1993). Preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64, 675–687.10.2307/1131210Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D., & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 159–207.10.1006/cogp.1999.0716Google Scholar
Lany, J., Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (2007). The role of prior experience in language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 481–507.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703–704.10.1038/nn1264Google Scholar
Mintz, T. H. (2002). Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory & Cognition, 30, 678–686.Google Scholar
Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology: General, 130, 401–426.Google Scholar
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants. Child Development, 80, 674–685.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01290.xGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Peereman, R. (2004). The exploitation of distributional information in syllable processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17 (2), 97–119.10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00059-9Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996a). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.10.1126/science.274.5294.1926Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996b). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 606–621.Google Scholar
Saffran, J., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R., & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8 (2), 101–105.Google Scholar
Thiessen, E. D., & Saffran, J. R. (2003). When cues collide: Use of stress and statistical cues to word boundaries by 7- to 9-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 39, 706–716.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., & Newport, E. L. (2007). Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development, 3 (1), 1–42.10.1080/15475440709336999Google Scholar