PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
Language Acquisition

Announcements On-line Blackboard quiz for chapter 4 is now up.
You may take it 5 times, top score counts I may end up pushing Exam 2 back a day. I’ll let you know soon. I’ll hand back Exam 1 at the end of class today Language development section includes information from Chapter 3, pages 72-87 Homework #2 due Feb. 21st

Acquiring language Dr. Cutting, language sure
is complicated. How do you expect us to learn all this stuff? Student in my psycholinguistics course

I can understand what you say.
Acquiring language Whadda’ ya mean, mommy. I can talk. I can understand what you say. What’s so hard? Student in my psycholinguistics course 2 year old

Acquiring language How do we (humans) do it? How do we learn to use this complex behavior? Student in my psycholinguistics course 2 year old

Overview Some of the major issues Imitation vs Innateness
Born to walk Born to talk? How much explicit teaching do we get? Very little on syntax & phonology, some on meaning Commonalities across individuals, languages and cultures Language is complex everywhere Sounds, words, syntax, and more No primitive (simple) languages Language development is similar everywhere Similar stages Discuss some of these with respect to the video that they watched Sit with support 3-4 m Without support 7-8 m Sit for extended time 9 m Crawl 8 m Stand while holding on 9 m Stand alone 11 m Walk alone 13 m Vision Fixed focus of about 20 cm for first month At second month can adjust focus By 4th month have adult comparable ability Hearing Cochlea and sensory end-organs developed by 24th week of pregnancy by 28th week fetus can hear outside noises (mother’s heartbeat, voice, cough, etc.)

Different approaches Behaviorist accounts
Imitation (& conditioning) accounts e.g., B. F. Skinner – children learn through imitation and reinforcement. Nativist (Innateness) accounts e.g., Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device (LAD) Language works by internalizing the rules of grammar to produce sentences. They do this without practice, reinforcement, or adult modeling Universal Grammar & Parameter setting

Different approaches Cognitive hypotheses Social hypothesis
Piaget – cognitive development drives language development Vygotsky – language and cognition are initially separate, but as each develop become tightly interconnected, with each influencing each other Social hypothesis e.g., Bruner’s Language acquisition socialization system (LASS) – emphasized the social setting in acquiring language Exposure to language is not enough, learners must experience language in social/interactive contexts E.g, child-directed speech, turn taking situations

Typical language development
36 Months 24 Months 18 Months 12 Months 6 Months Similar stages

6 Months Responds to his name Responds to human voices without visual cues by turning his head and eyes Responds appropriately to friendly and angry tones

12 Months Uses one or more words with meaning (this may be a fragment of a word) Understands simple instructions, especially if vocal or physical cues are given Practices inflection Is aware of the social value of speech

18 Months Has vocabulary of approximately 5-20 words Vocabulary made up chiefly of nouns Some echolalia (repeating a word or phrase over and over) Is able to follow simple commands

24 Months Can name a number of objects common to his surroundings Is able to use at least two prepositions Combines words into a short sentence (telegraphic) Vocabulary of approximately words Volume and pitch of voice not yet well-controlled

36 Months Use pronouns I, you, me correctly Is using some plurals and past tenses Knows at least three prepositions Handles three word sentences easily Has in the neighborhood of words About 90% of what child says should be intelligible Verbs begin to predominate

In the beginning… and the womb Prelinguistic communication
We experience language before we’re even born What was that? You’re mumbling. Normal human language uses sounds between 100 and 4000 Hz Sound travels through skin and fluids too In the womb, sounds up to 1000 Hz Can’t hear individual words But can hear: Intonation, durations, rhythm, stress Phones cut off frequencies above 3000 Hz Hearing Cochlea and sensory end-organs developed by 24th week of pregnancy by 28th week fetus can hear outside noises (mother’s heartbeat, voice, cough, etc.)

We experience language before we’re even born Non-Nutritive Sucking method DeCasper & Spence (1986) Had mothers read stories everyday to fetuses during final 6 weeks of pregnancy After babies were born tested to see if babies preferred familiar story over novel one Results: babies preferred the familiar stories Unlikely that this was based on the 4 days of experience

We experience language before we’re even born Mahler et al. (1988, in France) 4 day old babies Non-Nutritive Sucking method Unlikely that this was based on the 4 days of experience, more likely that time in womb accounts for the observations Played French or Russian Sucking pattern changed if language was switched Sucking pattern didn’t change if language wasn’t switched Babies knew (something about) the languages (most likely prosody)

We experience language before we’re even born DeCasper, et al (1994) Fetal heart monitor Unlikely that this was based on the 4 days of experience

We experience language before we’re even born DeCasper, et al (1994) Fetal heart monitor Had mothers read stories everyday to fetuses during weeks of pregnancy After 38th week, two stories were played to the fetuses (but mom couldn’t hear it) Unlikely that this was based on the 4 days of experience Same story Different story

We experience language before we’re even born DeCasper, et al (1994) Had mothers read stories everyday to fetuses during weeks of pregnancy After 38th week, two stories were played to the fetuses (but mom couldn’t hear it) Fetal heart monitor Unlikely that this was based on the 4 days of experience Decreased fetal heart-rate Same story Different story Baby learned something about the story before it was born!

The early days Prelinguistic communication After birth
Child-directed speech (motherese) Phonological differences are key Slower Higher in pitch More variable in pitch More exaggerated intonation All may help to orient and maintain attention of infant Typically deal with the “here & now” May help “bootstrap” later learning Cross (1977) proposes that adults may tailor the level of simplification to the child’s need (Linguistic feedback hypothesis). Snow (1977) argues that child-directed speech is used too early to be of use (it is also used at later times when it can be used). Instead argues for a conversational hypothesis, in which the focus is on the adults expectation of what the child needs. So the adults treat the child’s utterance as communication (think back to the video we watched)

The early days Prelinguistic communication After birth
Early “conversations” Turn taking behaviors From the movie - breast feeding “conversations” Parents interpret infant’s vocalizations as having meaning (also from the movie, Snow’s work) Cross (1977) proposes that adults may tailor the level of simplification to the child’s need (Linguistic feedback hypothesis). Snow (1977) argues that child-directed speech is used too early to be of use (it is also used at later times when it can be used). Instead argues for a conversational hypothesis, in which the focus is on the adults expectation of what the child needs. So the adults treat the child’s utterance as communication (think back to the video we watched)

The early days: gestures
Prelinguistic gestures (around 8 months) Demonstration that the infant is trying to communicate in some way e.g., pointing behaviors Criteria Waiting Persistence Development of alternative plans

The early days: phonology
Eimas et al, (1971) Categorical perception in infants (1 month olds) … … 7 % /ba/ 100 Sharp phoneme boundary Young infants can distinguish different phonemes At 1 month: infants have been found to distinguish between [ma] & [pa], [pa] & [ba], [ba] & [ga], ga/ta, da/ta, etc. Infants can also discriminate steady versus rising intonation, stress on first from second syllable, various vowel contrasts, Note: the NonNutritive Sucking method may not work on infants younger than 1 month, so some of these effect could be developed earlier. Some evidence suggesting a visual component too. Dodd 1979 – 10 to 16 wk old infants were presented with nursery rhymes under two conditions. In the synchronous condition infants were attentive 85% of time, in nonsynchronous condition (.4 sec delay with audio and visual tracks) only 66% of time were attentive.

Categorical perception in infants A number of studies suggest that very young infants can perceive between a number of phonemic distinctions (e.g., Kuhl & Meltzhoff, 1997) Not limited to their language context However, as they age/experience their context language the ability to perceive some of these distinctions are lost (~10 to 12 months) Nature/nurture debate: Are humans “pre-programmed” to distinguish speech sounds?

We’re listening The early days: phonology Eimas et al, (1971) Categorical perception in infants (1 month olds) 100 Sharp phoneme boundary Chinchillas do it too! Kuhl and Miller (1975) % /ba/ Are they “pre-programmed to perceive human speech? … … 7

The early days: speech production
Vocal track differences Infant Adult Infants vocal tracts are smaller, and initially shaped differently The infant’s tongue fills the entire mouth, reducing the range of movement As the facial skeleton grows, the range for movement increases (which probably contributes to the increased variety of sounds infants start to produce) May be (in part) why production lags behind comprehension

Speech production The progression of cooing and babbling follows a universal pattern. Role of both nature and nurture Nature/Biology plays an important role in the emergence of cooing & babbling. The form of the child’s vocalization is also affected by the linguistic environment. Cooing - “happy sounds” Cooing is unaffected by environment Cooing of deaf children is the same as hearing children Almost entirely made up of vowel sounds Babbling typically emerges by 6 months and typically lasts until around 1 year Pre 6 weeks – “vegetative” sounds Cry, burp, sucking noises Post 6 week – “cooing” and later “babbling” Babbling & other videos

Speech production The progression of cooing and babbling follows a universal pattern. Babies, until around 6 months old, can produce sounds/phonemes that their parents cannot produce or distinguish 6 - 8 weeks: cooing 4 - 6 months: babbling Cooing - “happy sounds” Cooing is unaffected by environment Cooing of deaf children is the same as hearing children Almost entirely made up of vowel sounds Often triggered by social interactions Laughter also emerges around the same time as cooing Babbling typically emerges by 6 months and typically lasts until around 1 year Clear consonants and vowels are produced “da”, “gi”

Speech production The progression of cooing and babbling follows a universal pattern. Babies, until around 6 months old, can produce sounds/phonemes that their parents cannot produce or distinguish 6 - 8 weeks: cooing 4 - 6 months: babbling Cooing - “happy sounds” Cooing is unaffected by environment Cooing of deaf children is the same as hearing children Almost entirely made up of vowel sounds Babbling typically emerges by 6 months and typically lasts until around 1 year 6 - 7 months: Reduplicated babbling “dada”, “gigi”

Speech production The progression of cooing and babbling follows a universal pattern. Babies, until around 6 months old, can produce sounds/phonemes that their parents cannot produce or distinguish 6 - 8 weeks: cooing 4 - 6 months: babbling Cooing - “happy sounds” Cooing is unaffected by environment Cooing of deaf children is the same as hearing children Almost entirely made up of vowel sounds Babbling typically emerges by 6 months and typically lasts until around 1 year 6 - 7 months: Reduplicated babbling 8 - 9 months: CVC clusters may appear “bod”, “tat”

Speech production The progression of cooing and babbling follows a universal pattern. Babies, until around 6 months old, can produce sounds/phonemes that their parents cannot produce or distinguish 10 or 11 months: Variegated babbling Combining “incomprehensible words” “dab gogotah” Intonation patterns May reflect phonological rules of spoken language context Cooing - “happy sounds” Cooing is unaffected by environment Cooing of deaf children is the same as hearing children Almost entirely made up of vowel sounds Babbling typically emerges by 6 months and typically lasts until around 1 year By 12 to 14 months some evidence of language specific phonological rules

What else did you expect
The first words Of course he said “arf.” What else did you expect his first word to be? CHILDES - the child language data exchange system

Language Sponges Learning words 12 ms first words 2 yrs 200 words
About 3,000 new words per year, especially in the primary grades As many as 8 new words per day Production typically lags behind comprehension

Language Sponges Lots of individual differences
But there is also a consistent pattern On average, American children say their first word at around 13 months, experience a vocabulary spurt at around 19 months, and begin to produce simple sentences at around 24 months. However, the bars around the means show that there is great variability in when different children achieve each of these milestones. (Adapted from Bloom, 1998)

Vocabulary growth Methods used to study this
Observational data (60s to present) Diary studies Parents record their kids language development Taped language samples (Roger Brown) Small numbers of children (Eve, Adam, Sarah) Went to home every month made tape recordings Extensive study needed Hard to kids to “say all the words you know” or “say a question” Early phonological production isn’t like adult production, often need to take great care deciding what the child meant Large database CHILDES Many kids, many languages, including children with language difficulties CHILDES - the child language data exchange system

Language Sponges Learning words Learning Syntax Learning Morphology
General patterns and observations Sounds Meaning Proposed Strategies Fast mapping Whole object Mutual exclusivity Learning Syntax Learning Morphology

Early word learning First words (Around 10-15 months)
Emergence of systematic, repeated productions of phonologically consistent forms 1 word stage typically lasts around 10 months Have learned first 50 words by 15 – 24 months Typically focused on the “here and now” CHILDES - the child language data exchange system

Early word learning First words (Around 10-15 months)
Emergence of systematic, repeated productions of phonologically consistent forms Idiomorphs - personalized words Developed in systematic ways Not simply imitation, rather are creative Learned importance of consistency of names CHILDES - the child language data exchange system “Adult words” - Typically context bound (relevant to the immediate environment) Important people, Objects that move, Objects that can be acted upon, Familiar actions Nouns typically appear before verbs

What kinds of words? 1-general names 2- specific names 3-action words
“dog” 2- specific names “mommy” 3-action words “bye-bye” 4-modifiers “red” 5-personal/social “yes, no, please” 6-functional “what”

Early speech production
Transition to speech No. … my fis. No. My fis! This is your fis? Yes, my fis. Your fis? Oh, your fish.

Transition to speech This is your fis? No, … my fis. Can’t hear the difference? Rejects adult saying fis Can’t produce the correct sounds? Sometimes, but evidence suggests not always the case More general process of simplification “frees up” resources for concentrating on other aspects of language learning Your fis. No, my fis. Oh, your fish. Yes, my fis.

Transition to speech individual diffs, but some common processes Common Phonological processes Reduction Delete sounds from words (“da” for dog) Coalescence Combine different syllables into one syllable (“paf” for pacifier) Assimilation Change one sound into a similar sound within the word (“fweet” for sweet) Reduplication One syllable from a multi-syllabic word is repeated (“baba” for bottle)

Extensions of meaning Applying the words to referents Extension
Finding the appropriate limits of the meaning of words Underextension Applying a word too narrowly Overextension Applying a word too broadly

Extensions of meaning “tee”

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11
Based on Lewis 1957 (from Reich, 1986)

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11 1:10,18

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1 “googie”

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1 “googie” 1:11,2

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” 1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1 1:11,2
1:11,24

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” “tee/hosh” 1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1
1:11,2 1:11,24 “tee/hosh” 1:11,25

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” “tee/hosh” “hosh” 1:9,11 1:10,18
1:11,1 “googie” 1:11,2 1:11,24 “tee/hosh” 1:11,25 1:11,26 “hosh”

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” “tee/hosh” “hosh” “pushi” 1:9,11
1:10,18 1:11,1 “googie” 1:11,2 1:11,24 “tee/hosh” 1:11,25 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi”

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” “tee/hosh” “hosh” “pushi”
1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1 “googie” 1:11,2 1:11,24 “tee/hosh” 1:11,25 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh”

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” “tee/hosh” “hosh” “pushi”
1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1 “googie” 1:11,2 1:11,24 “tee/hosh” 1:11,25 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh” 2:0,20 “biggie googie”

Extensions of meaning One-word-per-referent heuristic “tee” “googie”
If a new word comes in for a referent that is already named, replace it Exception to that was “horse,” but it only lasted a day here Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” 2:0,20 “biggie googie”

Strategies for learning
Expansion and contraction can occur at the same time 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” 2:0,20 “biggie googie”

Child tries different things, if a word doesn’t work then try something else e.g., hosh didn’t for for the large dog, switched to biggie doggie 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” 2:0,20 “biggie googie”

Indeterminacy: Frog Frog Frog? Green? Ugly? Jumping?

Quine’s gavagai problem
The problem of reference: a word may refer to a number of referents (real world objects) a single object or event has many objects, parts and features that can be referred to Frog Frog? Green? Ugly? Jumping?

Learning word meanings
Learning words Fast mapping (Carey & Bartlett, 1978) Using the context to guess the meaning of a word Please give me the chromium tray. Not the blue one, the chromium one. All got the olive tray Several weeks later still had some of the meaning

Constraints on Word Learning
Learning words Perhaps children are biased to entertain certain hypotheses about word meanings over others These first guesses save them from logical ambiguity Get them started out on the right track Cognitive Constraints (Markman, 1989) Object-scope (whole object) constraint Taxonomic constraint Mutual exclusivity constraint

Object-scope (whole object) constraint Words refer to whole objects rather than to parts of objects Dog

Taxonomic constraint Words refer to categories of similar objects Taxonomies rather than thematically related obejcts ‘Here is a lux’ ‘Show me another lux’

But in ‘no-word’ conditions, they would be shown the first picture See this? Can you find another one?

Mutual exclusivity constraint (Markam and Watchel 1988) Each object has one label & different words refer to separate, non-overlapping categories of objects An object can have only one label ‘Show me a dax’: they choose the corkscrew because it is a less well known object for which they don’t have a label yet.

Problem with constraints
Most of the constraints proposed apply only to object names. What about verbs? (Nelson 1988) There have been cases where children have been observed violating these constraints Using for example the word ‘car’ only to refer to ‘cars moving on the street from a certain location’ (Bloom 1973) The mutual exclusivity constraint would prevent children from learning subordinate and superordinate information (animal < dog < poodle)

Language explosion continues
The language explosion is not just the result of simple semantic development; the child is not just adding more words to his/her vocabulary. Child is mastering basic syntactic and morphological processes. Some comprehension of syntax notes (from Language acquisition, by Maria Guasti): Acoustic information gives hints as to syntax (bootstrapping), between 6 and 9 months infants become sensitive to prosodic coherence of units of different size, by 7 months can parse speech stream into clause sized units, by 9 months phrase sized units Children can use this information, along with word meaning information to build simplified structural representations Another view is semantic bootstrapping of syntax (e.g., Pinker) – children have innate access to some semantically transparent notions (e.g., person, thing, action, agent, patient). These then serve as basis for syntactic category information Children by age of two can respond appropriately to sentence like “make the doggie bite the cat” so they recognize the importance and relevance of cannonical English word order

Syntax Mean length of utterance (MLU) in morphemes Take 100 utterances and count the number of morphemes per utterance Daddy coming. Hi, car. Daddy car comed. Two car outside. It getting dark. Allgone outside. Bye-bye outside. # morphemes: 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2 ‘-ing’ and ‘-ed’ separate morphemes ‘allgone’ treated as a single word MLU = morphemes/utterances = 20/7 = 2.86

Syntax Mean length of utterance (MLU) in morphemes

Proto-syntax (??) Holophrases (around years) Single-word utterances may be used to express more than the meaning usually attributed to that single word by adults “dog” might refer to the dog is drinking water Typically idiosyncratic, but some conventional/common (e.g., indicate the existence of an object, request recurrence of object or event) Often combined with intonation or gesture Controversial claim: May reflect a developing sense of syntax, but not yet knowing how to use it (e.g., see Bloom, 1973)

Syntax Roger Brown (1973) proposed 5 stages Stage 1: Telegraphic speech (MLU ~ 1.75; around 24 months) Children begin to combine words into utterances Limited to a small set of semantic relations (e.g., nomination, recurrence, attribution, possession [see table 10.3 for examples]) Debate: learning semantic relations or syntactic (position rules) “baby sleep” agent+action or Noun Verb Children in telegraphic speech stage are said to leave out the ‘little words’ and inflections: e.g. Mummy shoe NOT Mummy’s shoe Two cat NOT two cats

Syntax Roger Brown (1973) proposed 5 stages More than two words Stages 2 through 5 Stage 2 (MLU ~2.25) begin to modulate meaning using word order (syntax) Modulations for number, time, aspect Gradual acquisition of grammatical morphemes (“-ing”, “-s” Later stages reflect generally more complex use of syntax (e.g., questions, negatives)

How do kids learn the syntax?
Innateness accounts Semantic bootstrapping Learned accounts Acquired from the linguistic input from the environment It is in the stimulus Some comprehension of syntax notes (from Language acquisition, by Maria Guasti): Acoustic information gives hints as to syntax (bootstrapping), between 6 and 9 months infants become sensitive to prosodic coherence of units of different size, by 7 months can parse speech stream into clause sized units, by 9 months phrase sized units Children can use this information, along with word meaning information to build simplified structural representations Another view is semantic bootstrapping of syntax (e.g., Pinker) – children have innate access to some semantically transparent notions (e.g., person, thing, action, agent, patient). These then serve as basis for syntactic category information

Innateness account Pinker (1984, 1989) Semantic bootstrapping Child has innate knowledge of syntactic categories and linking rules Child learns the meanings of some content words Some comprehension of syntax notes (from Language acquisition, by Maria Guasti): Acoustic information gives hints as to syntax (bootstrapping), between 6 and 9 months infants become sensitive to prosodic coherence of units of different size, by 7 months can parse speech stream into clause sized units, by 9 months phrase sized units Children can use this information, along with word meaning information to build simplified structural representations Another view is semantic bootstrapping of syntax (e.g., Pinker) – children have innate access to some semantically transparent notions (e.g., person, thing, action, agent, patient). These then serve as basis for syntactic category information Child constructs some semantic representations of simple sentences Child makes guesses about syntactic structure based on surface form and semantic meaning

“It is in the stimulus” accounts (e.g. Bates, 1979) Speech to children is not impoverished (Snow, 1977) Children learn grammar by mapping semantic roles (agent, action, patient) onto grammatical categories (subject, verb, object) In all languages there are multiple potential cues indicating semantic/syntactic relations (e.g., word order, case marking) Similar words occur in similar linguistic contexts Acoustic information (e.g., prosody) may provide syntactic cues Children do not need innate knowledge to learn grammar

Acquiring Morphology Morphology
Typically things like inflections and prepositions start around MLU of 2.5 (usually in 2 yr olds) Remember the Wug experiment (Berko-Gleason, 1958)

Acquiring Morphology Morphology
This person knows how to rick. She did the same thing yesterday. Yesterday she ________. Typically children say that she “ricked.”

Acquiring Morphology Morphology: order of acquisition Age (yrs)
Morpheme Example(s) 2 Present progressive I driving Articles A dog, the doctor Plural Balls Uncontractible Copula He is asleep, am, are 3 Third person singular He wants an apple Full progressive Be + ing, I am singing Regular past tense She walked

Acquiring Morphology Children sometimes make mistakes.
My teacher holded the baby rabbits. Yes She holded the baby rabbits. No, she holded them loosely. Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbit? What did you say she did? Did you say held them tightly?

My teacher holded the baby rabbits.
Acquiring Morphology Children sometimes make mistakes. My teacher holded the baby rabbits. This is ungrammatical in the adult language Shows that children are not simply imitating In this case, what they produce something that is not in their input.

My teacher holded the baby rabbits.
Acquiring Morphology Children sometimes make mistakes. My teacher holded the baby rabbits. Why do they make errors like these? In the case at hand, we have what is called overregularization The verb hold has an irregular past tense form, held Because this form is used, the regular past tense-- that with -ed-- is not found (*hold-ed)

Acquiring Morphology The case of verb past tense:
Regular verb forms require no stored knowledge of the past tense form (wug test) Past tense is accomplished by applying a past tense rule (e.g., add -ed) to the verb stem With irregular verbs something must be memorized Examples: Horton heared a Who I finded Renée The alligator goed kerplunk

Acquiring Morphology The case of verb past tense:
Stages in the acquisition of irregular inflections With regular verbs, the default form -ed is used With irregulars, lists associating the verb with a particular form of the past tense have to be memorized: Past tense is -t when attached to leave, keep, etc. Is -> was Dig -> dug Has -> had

Acquiring Morphology Stages in the acquisition of irregular inflections time On the face of it, learning these morphological quirks follows a peculiar pattern: Early: correct irregular forms are used Middle: incorrect regular forms are used Late: correct forms are used again

Memory & Rules Why do we find this type of pattern? Memory and rules
The use of overregularized forms starts at around the same that that the child is beginning to apply the default -ed rule successfully Early: All forms-- whether regular or irregular-- are memorized Middle: The regular rule is learned, and in some cases overapplied Late: Irregulars are used based on memory, regulars use the rule (the idea is that if the word can provide its own past tense from memory, then the past tense rule is blocked)

Memory & Rules Why do we find this type of pattern? Memory and rules
Other accounts Maratsos (2000) – frequency explanation It is possible to predict which verbs will be subject to overregularization The more often an irregular form occurs in the input, the less likely the child is to use it as an overregularization This is evidence that some part of overregularization occurs because of memory failures Something about irregulars is unpredictable, hence has to be memorized

What kind of “teaching” do kids get?
If language is learned (and not innate), how do kids do it? What kind of feedback do they get? Claim: Positive evidence is not sufficient for learning a language.

Are the kids even aware of mistakes? The children are apparently aware of the fact that their forms are strange: Parent: Where’s Mommy? Child: Mommy goed to the store Parent: Mommy goed to the store? Child: NO! Daddy, I say it that way, not you

Positive and negative evidence
What kind of feedback is available for learning? Positive evidence: Kids hear grammatical sentences Negative evidence: information that a given sentence is ungrammatical Kids are not told which sentences are ungrammatical (no negative evidence) Let’s consider no negative evidence further…

How much Positive Evidence is there? Estimated 5000 – 7000 utterances a day Between ¼ and 1/3 are questions Over 20% are not “full” adult sentences (typically Noun or prepositional phrases) Only about 15% have typical English SVO form Roughly 45% of all maternal utterances began with one of 17 words (e.g., “what”, “that”, “it”, “you”) Cameron-Faulkner, et al (2003) So what kids do hear may be somewhat limited.

Negative evidence Negative evidence could come in various conceivable forms. “The sentence Bill a cookie ate is not a sentence in English, Timmy. No sentence with SOV word order is.” Upon hearing Bill a cookie ate, an adult might Not understand Look pained Rephrase the ungrammatical sentence grammatically

Kids resist instruction…
McNeill (1966) Child: Nobody don’t like me. Adult: No, say ‘nobody likes me.’ [repeats eight times] Adult: No, now listen carefully; say ‘nobody likes me.’ Child: Oh! Nobody don’t likes me.

Kids resist instruction…
Cazden (1972) (observation attributed to Jean Berko Gleason) Child: My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Adult: Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits? Child: Yes. Adult: What did you say she did? Child: She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Adult: Did you say she held them tightly? Child: No, she holded them loosely. So there doesn’t seem to be a lot of explicit negative evidence, and what there is the kids often resist

Negative evidence via feedback?
Do kids get “implicit” negative evidence? Do adults understand grammatical sentences and not understand ungrammatical ones? Do adults respond positively to grammatical sentences and negatively to ungrammatical ones?

Negative evidence via feedback?
Brown & Hanlon (1970): Case study of “Adam” - looked at things that were said to him by adults, and what he said to them Adults understood 42% of the grammatical sentences. Adults understood 47% of the ungrammatical ones. Adults expressed approval after 45% of the grammatical sentences. Adults expressed approval after 45% of the ungrammatical sentences. Suggests that there isn’t a lot of good negative evidence.

In a way, it’s moot anyway…
One of the striking things about child language is how few errors they actually make. For negative feedback to work, the kids have to make the errors (so that it can get the negative response). But they don’t make enough relevant kinds of errors to determine the complex grammar. Pinker, Marcus and others, conclude that much of this stuff must be innate. But this isn’t the only view. There is an ongoing debate about whether there are rules, or whether these patterns of behavior can be learned based on the language evidence that is available to the kids

Critical (sensitive) periods

Certain behavior is developed more quickly within a critical period than outside of it. This period is biologically determined. Examples: Imprinting in ducks (Lorenz, ; Hess, 1973) Ducklings will follow the first moving thing they see Only happens if they see something moving within the first few hours (after 32 hours it won’t happen) of hatching Binocular cells in humans Cells in visual system that respond only to input from both eyes. If these cells don’t get input from both eyes within first year of life, they don’t develop

Certain behavior is developed more quickly within a critical period than outside of it. This period is biologically determined. Some environmental input is necessary for normal development, but biology determines when the organism is responsive to that input. That “when” is the critical period

Critical period for language
Lenneberg (1967) proposed that there is a critical period for human language It assumes that language acquisition must occur before the end of the critical period Estimates range from 5 years up to onset of puberty

Evidence for critical period for language
Feral Children Children raised in the wild or with reduced exposure to human language What is the effect of this lack of exposure on language acquisition? Two classic cases Victor, the Wild Boy of Aveyron Genie

Victor, The Wild Boy of Aveyron
Found in 1800 near the outskirts of Aveyron, France Estimated to be about 7-years-old Considered by some to be the first documented case of autism Neither spoke or responded to speech Taken to and studied by Dr. Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard, and educator of deaf-mute and retarded children Never learned to speak and his receptive language ability was limited to a few simple commands. Described by Itard as “an almost normal boy who could not speak”

Genie Found in Arcadia, California in 1970, was not exposed to human language until age 13.5. Raised in isolation a situation of extreme abuse Genie could barely walk and could not talk when found Dr. Susan Curtiss made great efforts to teach her language, and she did learn how to talk, but her grammar never fully developed. Only capable of producing telegraphic utterances (e.g. Mike paint or Applesauce buy store) Used few closed-class morphemes and function words Speech sounded like that of a 2-year-old

Genie By age of 17 (after 4 years of extensive training)
Vocabulary of a 5 year old Poor syntax (telegraphic speech mostly) Examples Mama wash hair in sink At school scratch face I want Curtiss play piano Like go ride yellow school bus Father take piece wood. Hit. Cry.

What Do These Cases Tell Us?
Suggestive of the position that there is a critical period for first language learning (in particular for syntax and phonological development) If child is not exposed to language during early childhood (prior to the age of 6 or 7), then the ability to learn syntax will be impaired while other abilities are less strongly affected Not uncontroversial: Victor and Genie and children like them were deprived in many ways other than not being exposed to language Genie stopped talking after age 30 and was institutionalized shortly afterward (Rymer, 1993)

What Do These Cases Tell Us?
Suggestive of the position that there is a critical period for first language learning (in particular for syntax and phonological development) Why? Nativist explanation (see pg 79 of text) Maturational explanation: “less is more”

Second language learning
Learning a new language What if we already know one language, but want to learn another? Adults learning another language typically have a persistent foreign accent – perhaps a critical period for phonology (Flege & Hillenbrand, 1984) Adults typically do better initially at learning a new language compared to kids, but kids typically do better over the long term (Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1982)

Johnson and Newport (1989) Native Chinese/Korean speakers moving to US Task: Listen to sentences and judge whether grammatically correct Test score Age of arrival 2 17 R = -.87 Types of sentences used Past tense Plural Third person singular Present progressive Determiners Pronominalization Particle movement Subcategorization Auxillaries Yes/no questions Wh-questions Word order Test score Age of arrival 17 40 R = -.16

Johnson and Newport (1989) Native Chinese/Korean speakers moving to US Task: Listen to sentences and judge whether grammatically correct Concluded that around the age of 16 something happens Different factors operate on language acquisition before and after the age of 16 Types of sentences used Past tense Plural Third person singular Present progressive Determiners Pronominalization Particle movement Subcategorization Auxillaries Yes/no questions Wh-questions Word order Birdsong and Molis (2001) Replicated the Johnson and Newport study in Spanish/English speakers. Did not find a discontinuity around the age of 16

Effects of the Critical Period
Learning a language: Under 7 years: perfect command of the language possible Ages 8- c.15: Perfect command less possible progressively Age 15-: Imperfect command possible But these claims are far from universally accepted

Bilinguals & Polyglots
Many people speak more than one language Tucker (1999) - multilinguals outnumber monolinguals What is the impact of knowing/using more than one language? Factors affecting second language acquisition? What does the lexicon look like? Interesting effects in bilinguals Interference Code switching Cognitive advantages

Second language acquisition
Contexts of childhood bilingualism Simultaneous Both languages are acquired at the same time Vocabulary growth of bilinguals is similar to that of monolinguals Some aspects of acquisition may be slowed, but by age of 4 typically caught up Doesn’t seem to matter whether languages are “related” or not (e.g., English - French versus English Japanese) Can achieve “fluency” in both languages Sequential acquisition The second language is learned after a first language When the second language (L2) is acquired is important Early versus late learning (e.g., see the Johnson and Newport study)

Second language acquisition
Frequency of usage of both languages How often and in what contexts do you use the two languages “Use it or lose it” - language attrition Mode of acquisition Native bilingualism - growing up in a two language environment Immersion - schooling provided in a non-native language Submersion - one learner surrounded by non-native speakers Language dominance effects Relative fluency of L1 and L2 may impact processing

Bilingual Representations
How do we represent linguistic information in a bilingual lexicon? Probably depends on many of the factors just discussed Let’s look at some models and research focusing on the situation where L1 is dominant relative to L2

Models of the bilingual lexicons
Potter et al (1984): Separate Stores Models – separate lexicons for each language L1 L2 CONCEPTS Word Association Model L1 L2 CONCEPTS Concept Mediation Model L1=First Language L2=Second Language

Models of the bilingual lexicons
Paivio, Clark, & Lambert (1988): Common Stores Models – words from both languages in same store L1 & L2 CONCEPTS L1=First Language L2=Second Language

Revised Hierarchical Model
The results are mixed, supporting more complex models May be different in different bilinguals depending on things like age of acquisition, relative proficiency, etc. L1 L2 concepts lexical links conceptual Kroll & Stewart (1994) Proposed that the fluency of L2 needs to be considered in the processing model

Interesting effects in bilinguals
Interference Code switching Cognitive advantages Types of sentences used Past tense Plural Third person singular Present progressive Determiners Pronominalization Particle movement Subcategorization Auxillaries Yes/no questions Wh-questions Word order

Interference Does knowing two languages lead to interference? When found, interference is at multiple levels Phonological - least amount of interference Lexical - mixing words from different languages Initially, appear to use a one word per thing strategy But as they realize there that they’re speaking two language, then they’ll use words from both languages simultaneously Syntactic Until year two, may use only one syntactic system which is common to both languages Then a brief period with two sets of lexical items, but still a common syntax Finally, two lexicons and two sets of syntax Types of sentences used Past tense Plural Third person singular Present progressive Determiners Pronominalization Particle movement Subcategorization Auxillaries Yes/no questions Wh-questions Word order

Determine who or what is the one performing the action. The waitress pushes the cowboys. The telephones pushes the cowboys. Kisses the table the apple. The baskets the teacher kicks. As a native speaker of English we can use many cues: Word order Animacy Verb agreement Not all languages use the same cues to the same extent e.g., German doesn’t rely as much on word order, but relies more on agreement processes Sentence 1: waitress doing the pushing (even though the semantics/real world knowledge is strange). Both word order and agreement support this view. Sentence 2: very strange, position favors telephone, but verb and animacy suggest cowboys Sentence 3: English word order suggests object follows the verb Sentence 4: animacy and agreement suggest teacher as actor

Determine who or what is the one performing the action. The waitress pushes the cowboys. The telephones pushes the cowboys. Kisses the table the apple. The baskets the teacher kicks. Kilborn (1989, 1994) Found that bilinguals (English as second language) typically carry over the dominant processing strategies from their native languages. This interacts with their level of fluency in the second language Sentence 1: waitress doing the pushing (even though the semantics/real world knowledge is strange). Both word order and agreement support this view. Sentence 2: very strnage, position favors telephone, but verb and animacy suggest cowboys Sentence 3: English word order suggests object follows the verb Sentence 4: animacy and agreement suggest teacher as actor

“I want a motorcycle VERDE”
Code switching When bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word from another language “I want a motorcycle VERDE” Switching is systematic, not random

Code switching When bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word from another language “I want a motorcycle VERDE” The Spanish adjective “verde” follows a grammatical rule that is observed by most bilingual speakers that code-switch “I want a VERDE motorcycle” Would be incorrect because language switching can occur only if the adjective is placed according to the rules of the language of the adjective In this case, the adjective is in Spanish; therefore, the adjective must follow the Spanish grammatical rule that states that the noun must precede the adjective

Code switching When bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word from another language “I want a motorcycle VERDE” Generally, bilinguals take longer to read and comprehend sentences containing code-switched words May be due to a “mental switch mechanism” that determines which of the bilingual’s two mental dictionaries are “on” or “off” during language comprehension. This mental switch is responsible for selecting the appropriate mental dictionary to be employed during the comprehension of a sentence. E.g., if reading an English, a Spanish code-switched word is encountered, the mental switch must disable the English linguistic system, and enable the Spanish linguistic system.

Code switching When bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word from another language “I want a motorcycle VERDE” Generally, bilinguals take longer to read and comprehend sentences containing code-switched words This time difference depends on similarity of the languages Chinese-English bilinguals take longer to recognize English code-switched words in Chinese sentences only if the English words contain initial consonant-consonant (e.g., flight) clusters, simply because the Chinese language lacks this phonotactic structure. Another current view suggests that language dominance (i.e., which language is used more frequently) plays an important role in code-switching

Cognitive advantages Some evidence suggest that being bilingual can have an impact on cognition outside of language Bialystok and colleagues Bilinguals are very proficient at switching between languages Bilinguals also have to be good at suppressing the contextually inappropriate language

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PSY 369: Psycholinguistics"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PSY 369: Psycholinguistics"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback