How Native Prosody Affects Pitch Processing During Word Learning in Limburgian and Dutch Toddlers and Adults

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2017 Oct 12

PMID 29018382

Citations 3

Authors

Stefanie Ramachers

Susanne Brouwer

Paula Fikkert

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In this study, Limburgian and Dutch 2.5- to 4-year-olds and adults took part in a word learning experiment. Following the procedure employed by Quam and Swingley (2010) and Singh et al. (2014), participants learned two novel word-object mappings. After training, word recognition was tested in correct pronunciation (CP) trials and mispronunciation (MP) trials featuring a pitch change. Since Limburgian is considered a restricted tone language, we expected that the pitch change would hinder word recognition in Limburgian, but not in non-tonal Dutch listeners. Contrary to our expectations, both Limburgian and Dutch children appeared to be sensitive to pitch changes in newly learned words, indicated by a significant decrease in target fixation in MP trials compared to CP trials. Limburgian and Dutch adults showed very strong naming effects in both trial types. The results are discussed against the background of the influence of the native prosodic system.

Citing Articles

Playing With Fire Compounds: The Tonal Accents of Compounds in (North) Norwegian Preschoolers' Role-Play Register.

Strand B Lang Speech. 2023; 67(1):113-139.

PMID: 37113109 PMC: 11420583. DOI: 10.1177/00238309231161289.

The Diversity of Tone Languages and the Roles of Pitch Variation in Non-tone Languages: Considerations for Tone Perception Research.

Best C Front Psychol. 2019; 10:364.

PMID: 30863341 PMC: 6399451. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00364.

The Effects of Lexical Pitch Accent on Infant Word Recognition in Japanese.

Ota M, Yamane N, Mazuka R Front Psychol. 2018; 8:2354.

PMID: 29375452 PMC: 5770359. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02354.

References

Buckler H, Fikkert P . Dutch and German 3-Year-Olds' Representations of Voicing Alternations. Lang Speech. 2016; 59(Pt 2):236-65. DOI: 10.1177/0023830915587038. View

Fennell C . Object Familiarity Enhances Infants' Use of Phonetic Detail in Novel Words. Infancy. 2020; 17(3):339-353. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00080.x. View

Hilton M, Westermann G . The effect of shyness on children's formation and retention of novel word-object mappings. J Child Lang. 2016; 44(6):1394-1412. DOI: 10.1017/S030500091600057X. View

Dietrich C, Swingley D, Werker J . Native language governs interpretation of salient speech sound differences at 18 months. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(41):16027-31. PMC: 1999399. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0705270104. View

Liu L, Kager R . Perception of tones by infants learning a non-tone language. Cognition. 2014; 133(2):385-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.004. View

Luce P, Pisoni D . Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 1998; 19(1):1-36. PMC: 3467695. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001. View

Markman E, Wachtel G . Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cogn Psychol. 1988; 20(2):121-57. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5. View

Swingley D, Aslin R . Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition. 2000; 76(2):147-66. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00081-0. View

Singh L, Fu C . A New View of Language Development: The Acquisition of Lexical Tone. Child Dev. 2016; 87(3):834-54. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12512. View

10.

Singh L, Hui T, Chan C, Golinkoff R . Influences of vowel and tone variation on emergent word knowledge: a cross-linguistic investigation. Dev Sci. 2013; 17(1):94-109. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12097. View

11.

Singh L, Quam C . Can bilingual children turn one language off? Evidence from perceptual switching. J Exp Child Psychol. 2016; 147:111-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.03.006. View

12.

Singh L, Goh H, Wewalaarachchi T . Spoken word recognition in early childhood: Comparative effects of vowel, consonant and lexical tone variation. Cognition. 2015; 142:1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.010. View

13.

Jarvis L, Merriman W, Barnett M, Hanba J, Van Haitsma K . Input that contradicts young children's strategy for mapping novel words affects their phonological and semantic interpretation of other novel words. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004; 47(2):392-406. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/032). View

14.

Gandour J, Harshman R . Crosslanguage differences in tone perception: a multidimensional scaling investigation. Lang Speech. 1978; 21(1):1-33. DOI: 10.1177/002383097802100101. View

15.

Kuhl P . Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004; 5(11):831-43. DOI: 10.1038/nrn1533. View

16.

Swingley D . Onsets and codas in 1.5-year-olds' word recognition. J Mem Lang. 2010; 60(2):252. PMC: 2678748. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.003. View

17.

Diesendruck G, Markson L . Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: a pragmatic account. Dev Psychol. 2001; 37(5):630-41. View

18.

Ramachers S, Brouwer S, Fikkert P . No perceptual reorganization for Limburgian tones? A cross-linguistic investigation with 6- to 12-month-old infants. J Child Lang. 2017; 45(2):290-318. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000917000228. View

19.

Cutler A, van Donselaar W . Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Lang Speech. 2001; 44(Pt 2):171-95. DOI: 10.1177/00238309010440020301. View

20.

Tsuji S, Fikkert P, Yamane N, Mazuka R . Language-general biases and language-specific experience contribute to phonological detail in toddlers' word representations. Dev Psychol. 2016; 52(3):379-90. DOI: 10.1037/dev0000093. View