Listeners learn phonotactic patterns conditioned on suprasegmental cues

References

• Albareda-Castellot, B., Pons, F., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2011). The acquisition of phonetic categories in bilingual infants: New data from an anticipatory eye movement paradigm. Developmental Science, 14, 395–401. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00989.x
   Google Scholar
• Allen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual differences in voice-onset-time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 3171–3183. doi:10.1121/1.1701898
   Google Scholar
• Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by human infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00063
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–2. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = lme4.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. (2012). Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency (Doctoral dissertation). University of California Santa Cruz, 2012. Dissertation Abstracts International, 74-02(E), Section: A.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, A. (2015). An onset is an onset: Evidence from abstraction of newly-learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 78, 18–32. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.04. Retrieved January 16, 2012, from http://www.praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Bosch, L., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46, 217–243. doi:10.1177/00238309030460020801
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2003). Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experiences. Cognition, 87(2), B69–B77. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00233-0
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2010). A vowel is a vowel: Generalizing newly learned phonotactic constraints to new contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 821–828. doi:10.1037/a0018991
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2011). Representations for phonotactic learning in infancy. Language Learning and Development, 7(4), 287–308. doi:10.1080/15475441.2011.580447
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257–271. Retrieved from http://psy.cns.sissa.it
   Google Scholar
• Creel, S. C., Aslin, R. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access. Cognition, 106, 633–664. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.013
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. (2009). Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in non-native than in native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3522–3525. doi:10.1121/1.3117434
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A Literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141–201. doi:10.1177/002383099704000203
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.113
   Google Scholar
• Daland, R., Hayes, B., White, J., Garellek, M., Davis, A., & Norrmann, I. (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology, 28, 197–234. doi:10.1017/S0952675711000145
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., Reed, K., Adams, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1355–1367. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1355
   Google Scholar
• Endress, A. D., & Mehler, J. (2010). Perceptual constraints in phonotactic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 235–250. doi:10.1037/a0017164
   Google Scholar
• Finn, A. S., & Hudson Kam, C. L. (2008). The curse of knowledge: First language knowledge impairs adult learners’ use of novel statistics for word segmentation. Cognition, 477–499. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.002
   Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D., & Wessels, J. M. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge and its use in infant speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 287–295. doi:10.3758/BF03205263
   Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G., Warker, J., Lindsay, S., Frost, R., Guest, J., Snowdon, R., & Stackhouse, A. (2014). Sleep underpins the plasticity of language production. Psychological Science, 25, 1457–1465. doi:10.1177/0956797614535937
   Google Scholar
• Gervain, J., & Werker, J. F. (2013). Prosody cues word order in 7-month-old bilingual infants. Nature Communications, 4. doi:10.1038/ncomms2430
   Google Scholar
• Gladfelter, A., & Goffman, L. (2013). The influence of prosodic stress patterns and semantic depth on novel word learning in typically developing children. Language Learning and Development, 9, 151–174. doi:10.1080/15475441.2012.684574
   Google Scholar
• Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–279. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251
   Google Scholar
• Goldrick, M. (2004). Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 586–603. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.004
   Google Scholar
• Goldrick, M., & Larson, M. (2008). Phonotactic probability influences speech production. Cognition, 1155–1164. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.009
   Google Scholar
• Gomez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431–436. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00476
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, M. (2011). Stress: Phonotactic and phonetic evidence. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 924–948). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, A. A. (1958). Introduction to linguistic structures: From sound to sentence in English. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, J. B. (1978). Constraints on schwa-deletion in American English. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs), pp. 183–207. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2011, June 25). More on random slopes and what it means if your effect is not longer significant after the inclusion of random slopes. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from https://hlplab.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/more-on-random-slopes/
   Google Scholar
• Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64(3), 675–687. doi:10.2307/1131210
   Google Scholar
• Jusczyk, P. W., Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J. M., Svenkerud, V. Y., & Jusczyk, A. M. (1993). Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 402–420. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1022
   Google Scholar
• Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630–645. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1030
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, M. H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonological in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99, 349–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.349
   Google Scholar
• Lany, J., & Saffran, J. R. (2010). From statistics to meaning: Infants’ acquisition of lexical categories. Psychological Science, 21(2), 284–291. doi:10.1177/0956797609358570
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 451–454. doi:10.1121/1.1908095
   Google Scholar
• Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 465–494. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0721
   Google Scholar
• Maye, J., Werker, J. F., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82(3), B101–B111. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00157-3
   Google Scholar
• Mintz, T. H. (2002). Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory and Cognition, 30, 678–686. doi:10.3758/BF03196424
   Google Scholar
• Munson, B. (2001). Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44, 778–792. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/061)
   Google Scholar
• Munson, B., Swenson, C. L., & Manthei, S. C. (2005). Lexical and phonological organization in children: Evidence from repetition tasks. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48, 108–124. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/061)
   Google Scholar
• Onishi, K. H., Chambers, K. E., & Fisher, C. (2002). Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 83(1), B13–B23. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00165-2
   Google Scholar
• Polka, L., & Sundara, M. (2012). Word segmentation in monolingual infants acquiring Canadian English and Canadian French: Native language, cross-dialect, and cross-language comparisons. Infancy, 17(2), 198–232. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00075.x
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 484–494. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.484
   Google Scholar
• Seidl, A., & Buckley, E. (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development, 1(3–4), 289–316. doi:10.1080/15475441.2005.9671950
   Google Scholar
• Seidl, A., Cristià, A., Bernard, A., & Onishi, K. (2009). Allophones and phonemes in infants’ phonotactic learning. Language Learning and Development, 5, 191–202. doi:10.1080/15475440902754326
   Google Scholar
• Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44, 1321–1337. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/103)
   Google Scholar
• Storkel, H. L., Armbruster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 49, 1175–1192. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/085)
   Google Scholar
• Sundara, M., & Scutellaro, A. (2011). Rhythmic distance between languages affects the development of speech perception in bilingual infants. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 505–513. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.006
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. F., & Houghton, G. (2005). Learning artificial phonotactic constraints: Time course, durability, and relationship to natural constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1398–1416. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1398
   Google Scholar
• Turk, A. E., Jusczyk, P. W., & Gerken, L. (1995). Do English-learning infants use syllable weight to determine stress? Language and Speech, 38, 143–158. doi:10.1177/002383099503800202
   Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When word compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00064
   Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2618
   Google Scholar
• Warker, J. A. (2013). Investigating the retention and time course of phonotactic constraint learning from production experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 96–109. doi:10.1037/a0028648
   Google Scholar
• Warker, J. A., & Dell, G. S. (2006). Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 387–398. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.387
   Google Scholar
• Warker, J. A., Dell, G. S., Whalen, C. A., & Gereg, S. (2008). Limits on learning phonotactic constraints from recent production experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1289–1295. doi:10.1037/a0013033
   Google Scholar
• Zamuner, T. S. (2003). Input based phonological acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zamuner, T. S. (2006). Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9–16-month-olds. Infancy, 10, 77–95. doi:10.1207/s15327078in1001_5
   Google Scholar
• Zamuner, T. S., Gerken, L. A., & Hammond, M. (2004). Phonotactic probabilities in young children’s speech production. Journal of Child Language, 31, 515–536. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006233
   Google Scholar
• Zamuner, T. S., & Kharlamov, V. (2016). Phonotactics and syllable structure in infant speech perception. In J. Lidz, W. Snyder, & J. Pater (Eds.), Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics (pp. 27–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar