The Effect of Sonority on Word Segmentation: Evidence for the Use of a Phonological Universal
Cognitive Science 36 (4):655-673 (2011)
| Abstract | It has been well documented how language-specific cues may be used for word segmentation. Here, we investigate what role a language-independent phonological universal, the sonority sequencing principle (SSP), may also play. Participants were presented with an unsegmented speech stream with non-English word onsets that juxtaposed adherence to the SSP with transitional probabilities. Participants favored using the SSP in assessing word-hood, suggesting that the SSP represents a potentially powerful cue for word segmentation. To ensure the SSP influenced the segmentation process (i.e., during learning), we presented two additional groups of participants with either (a) no exposure to the stimuli prior to testing or (b) the same stimuli with pauses marking word breaks. The SSP did not influence test performance in either case, suggesting that the SSP is important for word segmentation during the learning process itself. Moreover, the fact that SSP-independent segmentation of the stimulus occurred (in the latter control condition) suggests that universals are best understood as biases rather than immutable constraints on learning | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesHeather Bortfeld (2004). Which Came First: Infants Learning Language or Motherese? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):505-506.
Holger Mitterer, Yiya Chen & Xiaolin Zhou (2011). Phonological Abstraction in Processing Lexical-Tone Variation: Evidence From a Learning Paradigm. Cognitive Science 35 (1):184-197.
Robert Daland & Janet B. Pierrehumbert (2011). Learning Diphone-Based Segmentation. Cognitive Science 35 (1):119-155.
Istvan Zachar (2011). The Feasibility of Segmentation of Protolanguage. Interaction Studies 12 (1):1-35.
Jennifer Culbertson & Paul Smolensky (forthcoming). A Bayesian Model of Biases in Artificial Language Learning: The Case of a Word-Order Universal. Cognitive Science.
Keith S. Apfelbaum & Bob McMurray (2011). Using Variability to Guide Dimensional Weighting: Associative Mechanisms in Early Word Learning. Cognitive Science 35 (6):1105-1138.
Agnes Nairn & Pierre Berthon (2003). Creating the Customer: The Influence of Advertising on Consumer Market Segments – Evidence and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 42 (1):83 - 99.
Giordana Grossi (1999). Which Phonology? Evidence for a Dissociation Between Articulatory and Auditory Phonology From Word-Form Deafness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):290-291.
Archana Balyan, S. S. Agrawal & Amita Dev (2012). Automatic Phonetic Segmentation of Hindi Speech Using Hidden Markov Model. AI and Society 27 (4):543-549.
Stanka A. Fitneva & Morten H. Christiansen (2011). Looking in the Wrong Direction Correlates With More Accurate Word Learning. Cognitive Science 35 (2):367-380.
Sandra R. Waxman (2001). Word Extension: A Key to Early Word Learning and Domain-Specificity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1121-1122.
Kenny Smith, Andrew D. M. Smith & Richard A. Blythe (2011). Cross-Situational Learning: An Experimental Study of Word-Learning Mechanisms. Cognitive Science 35 (3):480-498.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-11-04Total downloads2 ( #234,778 of 556,888 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
