» Articles » PMID: 21643455

The Independent Effects of Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density on Lexical Acquisition by Preschool Children

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2011 Jun 7
PMID 21643455
Citations 46
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The goal of this research was to disentangle effects of phonotactic probability, the likelihood of occurrence of a sound sequence, and neighborhood density, the number of phonologically similar words, in lexical acquisition. Two word learning experiments were conducted with 4-year-old children. Experiment 1 manipulated phonotactic probability while holding neighborhood density and referent characteristics constant. Experiment 2 manipulated neighborhood density while holding phonotactic probability and referent characteristics constant. Learning was tested at two time points (immediate vs. retention) in both a naming and referent identification task, although only data from the referent identification task were analyzed due to poor performance in the naming task. Results showed that children were more accurate learning rare sound sequences than common sound sequences and this was consistent across time points. In contrast, the effect of neighborhood density varied by time. Children were more accurate learning sparse sound sequences than dense sound sequences at the immediate test point but accuracy for dense sound sequences significantly improved by the retention test without further training. It was hypothesized that phonotactic probability and neighborhood density influenced different cognitive processes that underlie lexical acquisition.

Citing Articles

Influence of Child-Level Factors and Lexical Characteristics on Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants and Hearing Aids.

Lund E, Werfel K Dev Sci. 2025; 28(3):e70007.

PMID: 40066854 PMC: 11894921. DOI: 10.1111/desc.70007.


Jiwar: A database and calculator for word neighborhood measures in 40 languages.

Alzahrani A Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(3):98.

PMID: 39971880 PMC: 11839700. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02612-7.


Learnability Advantage of Segmental Repetitions in Word Learning.

Basnak J, Ota M Lang Speech. 2024; 67(4):1093-1120.

PMID: 38312096 PMC: 11583519. DOI: 10.1177/00238309231223909.


Semantic maturation during the comprehension-expression gap in late and typical talkers.

Jimenez E, Hills T Child Dev. 2022; 93(6):1727-1743.

PMID: 35722976 PMC: 9796559. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13815.


Grammatical Gender Disambiguates Syntactically Similar Nouns.

Rogers P, Gries S Entropy (Basel). 2022; 24(4).

PMID: 35455183 PMC: 9032811. DOI: 10.3390/e24040520.


References
1.
Magnuson J, Tanenhaus M, Aslin R, Dahan D . The time course of spoken word learning and recognition: studies with artificial lexicons. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132(2):202-27. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.202. View

2.
Zamuner T, Gerken L, Hammond M . Phonotactic probabilities in young children's speech production. J Child Lang. 2004; 31(3):515-36. DOI: 10.1017/s0305000904006233. View

3.
Storkel H . Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. J Child Lang. 2008; 36(2):291-321. PMC: 2632730. DOI: 10.1017/S030500090800891X. View

4.
Dumay N, Gaskell M . Sleep-associated changes in the mental representation of spoken words. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18(1):35-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01845.x. View

5.
Roodenrys S, Hinton M . Sublexical or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(1):29-33. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.29. View