Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:39:58.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infants' acceptance of phonotactically illegal word forms as object labels*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2015

ENA VUKATANA ,
SUZANNE CURTIN  and
SUSAN A. GRAHAM
ENA VUKATANA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
SUZANNE CURTIN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
SUSAN A. GRAHAM*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
*
Address for correspondence: S. Graham, Dept. of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4Canada; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated 16- and 20-month-olds' flexibility in mapping phonotactically illegal words to objects. Using an associative word-learning task, infants were presented with a training phase that either highlighted or did not highlight the referential status of a novel label. Infants were then habituated to two novel objects, each paired with a phonotactically illegal Czech word. When referential cues were provided, 16-, but not 20-month-olds, formed word–object mappings. In the absence of referential cues, infants of both ages failed to map the novel words. These findings illustrate the complex interplay between infants' developing sound system and their word learning abilities.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1400 - 1411
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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 research was supported by funding from SSHRC awarded to SC and SG, and funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation awarded to SG. EV was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. We thank the parents and infants who participated, as well as Heather MacKenzie, Michelle Zepeda, Patrick Mihalicz, Erin Dodd, and Regina Huh for their assistance with this research.

References

REFERENCES

Cohen, L. B., Atkinson, D. J. & Chaput, H. H. (2004). Habit X: a new program for obtaining and organizing data in infant perception and cognition studies (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Curtin, S. & Zamuner, T. S. (2014). Understanding the developing sound system: interactions between sounds and words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5, 589–602.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, A. C. & Woodward, W. A. (2007). Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook with SPSS examples. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, C. T. & Waxman, S. R. (2010). What paradox? Referential cues allow for infant use of phonetic detail in word learning. Child Development 81, 1376–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, B. & Waxman, S.R. (2015) What the [beep]? Six-month-olds link novel communicative signals to meaning. Cogntion 146, 185–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf Estes, K., Edwards, J. & Saffran, J. (2011). Phonotactic constraints on infant word learning. Infancy 16, 180–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, S. A. & Kilbreath, C. S. (2007). It's a sign of the kind: gestures and words guide infants’ inductive inferences. Developmental Psychology 43, 1111–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, J. F., Graf Estes, K., Wang, T. & Saffran, J. (2015). From flexibility to constraint: the contractive use of lexical tone in early word learning. Child Development 86, 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. M. E., Graham, S. A. & Schell, V. (2015). 24-month-olds’ selective learning is not an all-or-none phenomenon. PLoS ONE 10: e0131215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochmann, J., Endress, A. D. & Mehler, J. (2010). Word frequency as a cue for identifying function words in infancy. Cognition 115, 444–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollich, G., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: an emergentist coalition model of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 65, 1–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, H., Curtin, S. & Graham, S. A. (2012a). Class matters: 12-month-olds’ word–object associations privilege content over function words. Developmental Science 15, 753–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, H., Curtin, S. & Graham, S. A. (2012b). 12-month-olds’ phonotactic knowledge guides their word–object mappings. Child Development 83, 1129–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, H., Graham, S. A. & Curtin, S. (2011). Twelve-month-olds privilege words over other linguistic sounds in an associative learning task. Developmental Science 14, 249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, H. K., Graham, S. A., Curtin, S. A. & Archer, S. (2014). The flexibility of 12-month-olds’ preferences for phonologically appropriate object labels. Developmental Psychology 50, 422–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, L. & Werker, J. F. (2014). Can a click be a word? Infants’ learning of non-native words. Infancy 19, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namy, L. L. (2001). What's in a name when it isn't a word? 17-month- olds’ mapping of non-verbal symbols to object categories. Infancy 2, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namy, L. L., Campbell, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2004). The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: a U-shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures. Journal of Cognition and Development 5, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namy, L. L. & Waxman, S. R. (1998). Words and gestures: infants’ interpretations of different forms of symbolic reference. Child Development 69, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Namy, L. L. & Waxman, S. R. (2000). Naming and exclaiming: infants’ sensitivity to naming contexts. Journal of Cognition and Development 1, 405–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L., Hui, T. J., Chan, C. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014) Influences of vowel and tone variation on emergent word knowledge: a cross-linguistic investigation. Developmental Science 17, 94–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suanda, S. H. & Namy, L. L. (2013). Young word learners’ interpretations of words and symbolic gestures within the context of ambiguous reference. Child Development 84, 143–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suanda, S. H., Walton, K. M., Broesch, T., Kolkin, L. & Namy, L. L. (2013). Why two-year-olds fail to learn gestures as object labels: evidence from looking time and forced-choice measures. Language Learning and Development 9, 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thode, H. C. (2002). Testing for normality. New York: Marcel Dekker.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F., Cohen, L. B., Lloyd, V., Casasola, M. & Stager, C. L. (1998). Acquisition of word–object associations by 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology 34, 1289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. L. & Hoyne, K. L. (1999). Infants’ learning about words and sounds in relation to objects. Child Development 70, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed