Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

147
Sound Categories

TAGS:

Transcript of Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Page 1: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Sound Categories

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>
>

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 2: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>
>

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 3: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>
>

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 4: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Tones

>
>

Frequency - Tones

>
>
>

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 5: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Tones

>
>
>

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 6: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 7: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Complex Sounds

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 8: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Vowels

bull Vowels combine acoustic energy at a number of different frequencies

bull Different vowels ([a] [i] [u] etc) contain acoustic energy at different frequencies

bull Listeners must perform a lsquofrequency analysisrsquo of vowels in order to identify them(Fourier Analysis)

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 9: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)Time --gt

Frequency

Amplitude

Any function can be decomposed in terms of sinusoidal (= sine wave) functions (lsquobasis functionsrsquo) of different frequencies that can be recombined to obtain the original function [Wikipedia entry on Fourier Analysis]

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 10: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 11: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Male Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 12: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 13: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Frequency - Female Vowels

>
>

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 14: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Schedule

bull Lab 1A ndash Classic speech perception tasksndash individual data collect by Weds Sept 10thndash due Monday Sept 21st

bull Lab 1B - New speech perception tasksndash Task 1 rapid sequence recall (Dupoux et al 2008)ndash Task 2 implicit discrimination (Navarra et al 2005)ndash collect individual data by Thursday Sept 24th ndash email to jbuffintumdedundash group data files available shortly thereafter ndash team analysis welcomeencouragedndash due Friday Oct 2nd

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 15: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Timing - Voicing

>

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 16: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 17: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

English VOT production

bull Not uniformbull 2 categories

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 18: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 19: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 20: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 21: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 22: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 23: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 24: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 25: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 26: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 27: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

Why is this pair difficult

(i) Acoustically similar

(ii) Same Category

A More Systematic Test

>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 28: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 29: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 30: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Cross-language Differences

R L

>
>

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 31: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Cross-language Differences

R L

R L

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 32: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Japanese R-L

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 33: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Cross-Language Differences

English vs Hindi

alveolar [d]

retroflex [D]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 34: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Russian-40ms

-30ms

-20ms

-10ms

0ms

10ms

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 35: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Kazanina et al 2006

Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103 11381-6

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 36: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 37: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Quantifying Sensitivity

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 38: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Response bias

bull Two measures of discrimination

ndash Accuracy how often is the judge correctndash Sensitivity how well does the judge distinguish the categories

bull Quantifying sensitivity

ndash Hits MissesFalse Alarms Correct Rejections

ndash Compare p(H) against p(FA)

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 39: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull Is one of these more impressive Harder to obtain by chance

ndash p(H) = 075 p(FA) = 025ndash p(H) = 099 p(FA) = 049

bull A measure that amplifies small percentage differences at extremes

z-scores

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 40: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

nCarl Friederich Gauss (1777-1855)

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 41: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 42: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)655 inches

Standard deviation = 25 inches

Heights of AmericanFemales aged 18-24

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 43: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Quantifying Sensitivity

bull A z-score is a reexpression of a data point in units of standard deviations

(Sometimes also known as standard score)

bull In z-score data micro = 0 = 1

bull Sensitivity score

drsquo = z(H) - z(FA)

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 44: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

See Excel worksheet

sensitivityxls

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 45: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Quantifying Differences

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 46: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

(Naumlaumltaumlnen et al 1997)

(Aoshima et al 2004)

(Maye et al 2002)

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 47: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Normal Distribution

Mean (micro)

Dispersionaround mean

Standard DeviationA measure of dispersionaround the mean

radic( )sum(x - micro)2

n

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 48: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

The Empirical Rule

1 sd from mean 68 of data

2 sd from mean 95 of data

3 sd from mean 997 of data

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 49: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

bull If we observe 1 individual how likely is it that his score is at least 2 sd from the mean

bull Put differently if we observe somebody whose score is 2 sd or more from the population mean how likely is it that the person is drawn from that population

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 50: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

bull If we observe 2 people how likely is it that they both fall 2 sd or more from the mean

bull hellipand if we observe 10 people how likely is it that their mean score is 2 sd from the group mean

bull If we do find such a group theyrsquore probably from a different population

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 51: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

bull Standard Error

is the Standard Deviation of sample means

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 52: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

bull If we observe a group whose mean differs from the population mean by 2 se how likely is it that this group was drawn from the same population

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 53: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Development of Speech Perception in Infancy

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 54: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Voice Onset Time (VOT)

60 msec

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 55: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Perceiving VOT

lsquoCategorical Perceptionrsquo

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 56: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 57: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Abstraction

bull Representations ndash Sound encodings - clearly non-symbolic but otherwise unclearndash Phonetic categoriesndash Memorized symbols k aelig t

bull Behaviorsndash Successful discriminationndash Unsuccessful discriminationndash lsquoStep-likersquo identification functionsndash Grouping different sounds

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 58: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Letrsquos Learn Inuktitut

Video Nunavik Building on the Knowledge of Ancestors

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 59: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Vowels

Consonants

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 60: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Three Classics

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 61: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Development of Speech Perception

bull Unusually well described in past 30 yearsbull Learning theories exist and can be testedhellip

bull Jakobsonrsquos suggestion children add feature contrasts to their phonological inventory during development

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze

1941

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 62: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Developmental Differentiation

0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

UniversalPhonetics

Native LgPhonetics

Native LgPhonology

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 63: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

1 - Infant Categorical Perception

Eimas Siqueland Jusczyk amp Vigorito 1971

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 64: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Discrimination

SameDifferent0ms 60ms

SameDifferent0ms 10ms

SameDifferent40ms 40ms

A More Systematic Test

0ms

20ms

40ms

20ms

40ms

60ms

D T

D

T T

D

Within-Category Discrimination is Hard

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 65: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

high amplitude suckingnon-nutritive sucking

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 66: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

English VOT Perception

To Test 2-month olds

High Amplitude Sucking

Eimas et al 1971

>
>
>
>
>
>

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 67: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

General Infant Abilities

bull Infantsrsquo show Categorical Perception of speech sounds - at 2 months and earlier

bull Discriminate a wide range of speech contrasts (voicing place manner etc)

bull Discriminate Non-Native speech contrastseg Japanese babies discriminate r-leg Canadian babies discriminate d-D[these findings based mostly on lookingheadturn studies w 6 month olds]

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 68: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Universal Listeners

bull Infants may be able to discriminate all speech contrasts from the languages of the world

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 69: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

How can they do this

bull Innate speech-processing capacitybull General properties of auditory system

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 70: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

What About Non-Humans

bull Chinchillas show categorical perception of voicing contrasts

PK Kuhl amp JD Miller Science 190 69-72 (1975)

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 71: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Joan Sinnott U of S Alabama

More recent findingshellip

1 Auditory perceptual abilities in macaque monkeys and humans differ in various ways

2 Discrimination sensitivity for b-p continua is more fine-grained in (adult) humans (Sinnott amp Adams JASA 1987)

3 Sensitivity to cues to r-l distinctions is different although trading relations are observed in humans and macaques alike (Sinnott amp Brown JASA 1997)

4 Some differences in vowel sensitivityhellip

Suitability of Animal Models

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 72: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

2 - Becoming a Native Listener

Werker amp Tees 1984

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 73: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

When does Change Occur

bull About 10 months

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 74: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

When does Change Occur

bull Hindi and Salishcontrasts testedon English kids

Janet Werker

U of British ColumbiaConditioned Headturn Procedure

>
>

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 75: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

What do Werkerrsquos results show

bull Is this the beginning of efficient memory representations (phonological categories)

bull Are the infants learning wordsbull Or something else

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 76: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Korean has [l] amp [r]

[rupi] ldquorubyrdquo[kiri] ldquoroadrdquo[saram] ldquopersonrdquo[irumi] ldquonamerdquo[ratio] ldquoradiordquo[mul] ldquowaterrdquo[pal] ldquobigrdquo[sul] ldquoSeoulrdquo[ilkop] ldquosevenrdquo[ipalsa] ldquobarberrdquo

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 77: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

3 - What no minimal pairs

Stager amp Werker 1997

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 78: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

A Learning Theoryhellip

bull How do we find out the contrastive phonemes of a language

bull Minimal Pairs

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 79: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Word Learning

bull Stager ampWerker 1997

lsquobihrsquo vs lsquodihrsquoandlsquolifrsquo vs lsquoneemrsquo

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 80: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

PRETEST

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 81: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

HABITUATION

TEST

SAME SWITCH

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 82: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Word learning results

bull Exp 2 vs 4

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 83: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs

bull They fail specifically when the task requires word-learning

bull They do know the soundsbull But they fail to use the detail needed for

minimal pairs to store words in memorybull

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 84: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

One-Year Olds Again

bull One-year olds know the surface sound patterns of the language

bull One-year olds do not yet know which sounds are used contrastively in the languagehellip

bull hellipand which sounds simply reflect allophonic variation

bull One-year olds need to learn contrasts

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 85: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Maybe not so bad after all

bull Children learn the feature contrasts of their language

bull Children may learn gradually adding features over the course of development

bull Phonetic knowledge does not entailphonological knowledge

Roman Jakobson 1896-1982

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 86: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Werker et al 2002

14 17 20

14 months 17 months 20 months

0 60 300 600

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 87: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Swingley amp Aslin 2002bull 14-month olds did recognize mispronunciations of familiar

words

Dan Swingley UPenn

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 88: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson

bull Word-learning is very hard for younger children so detail is initially missed when they first learn words

bull Many exposures are needed to learn detailed word forms at early stages of word-learning

bull Success on the WerkerStager task seems to be related to the vocabulary spurt rapid growth in vocabulary after ~50 words

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 89: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Some possibilities

lsquoUse it or lose itrsquo ndash they stop paying attention to contrasts that they donrsquot need for the ambient language

Minimal pairs (eg rock vs lock) ndash requires word meanings

Acoustic distributions of sounds requires no word knowledge

Seeking contextually conditioned variation eg Korean rl contrast

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 90: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 91: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Exp 1 tam - tamExp 2 taeligm - taeligmExp 3 taaeligm - tem

Length factor ~18-20

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 92: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

(Dietrich Swingley amp Werker 2007)

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 93: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 94: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 95: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 96: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

[2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

5 hoursrsquo exposure to Mandarinplusmn human interaction

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 97: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

fricativeaffricate

Alveo-palatals

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 98: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Jessica Maye Northwestern U

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 99: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

bull Infants at age 6-8 months are still lsquouniversal listenersrsquo cf Pegg amp Werker (1997)

bull Infants trained on bi-modal distribution show lsquonovelty preferencersquo for test sequence with fully alternating sequence

bull How could the proposal scale up

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 100: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

p(a) = p(b) p(a) = 2 x p(b)

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 101: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

10

5

25

1

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 102: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 103: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Slides Swingley 2006 ICIS

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 104: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Fenson et al 2000

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 105: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

birddogduckdollbreadcandyheaddishradiooutsidefeedtodaydark

toasthatantstoothtabletelevisionblanketoutsideplantwaittodayfasthurtsoftout

stroller

kittywaterbabysitterprettypatty cakebottle

kitchendonrsquotnight (night)

MacArthur Short CDI - 89 items

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 106: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Fei Xu Berkeley

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 107: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Xu amp Carey 199610 mo no surprise12 mo surprise--gt ldquo10 month olds do not represent basic sortalkind conceptsrdquo

Xu 2002Add words9 mo

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 108: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Fulkerson amp Waxman 2007

12 months 6 monthsWords micro = 59 p = 007 micro = 63 p lt 001Tones micro = 53 p = 2 micro = 54 p = 2

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 109: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Yeung amp Werker 2009

Effect of Type (plusmnalternating)Exp1 F(118) = 574 p lt 05Exp2 F(118) = 053 p = 47

Naturally produced Hindi syllablesDental vs retroflex

A Familiarize sound-object linksB Test sound discrimination only

Exp1 consistent linksExp2 inconsistent links

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 110: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

(Feldman Griffiths amp Morgan 2009)

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 111: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

ldquoSimulations demonstrate that using information from segmented words to constrain phonetic category acquisition allows more robust category learning from fewer data points due to the inter- active learnerrsquos ability to use information about which words contain particular speech sounds to disambiguate overlapping categoriesrdquo (Feldman et al 2009)

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 112: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Questions

bull Combining words and sound distributions what do learners need to know

bull Too-many-colors problem how to combine across words

bull Why does interaction matter (Kuhl et al 2003 on Mandarin)

bull What does this predict about 1-year oldsrsquo knowledge of phonological contrast

bull What changes between 12 amp 18 months

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 113: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

(Jusczyk 1997)

Invariance

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 114: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Training on [g-k] or [d-t] generalization across place of articulation(Dis-)habituation paradigm

[Maye amp Weiss 2003]

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 115: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

So how do infants learnhellip

bull Phoneme categories and alternations

ndash Perhaps more like a phonologist than like a LING101 student - look directly for systematic relations among phones

ndash Gradual articulation of contrastive information encoded in lexical entries

ndash Much remains to be understood

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 116: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding

bull From a very early age infants show great sensitivity to speech sounds possibly already with some lsquocategory-likersquo structure

bull Although native-like sensitivity develops early (lt 1 year) this should be distinguished from adult-like knowledge of the sound system of the languagendash Children still need to learn how to efficiently encode words (phoneme

inventory)ndash Children presumably still need to learn how to map stored word forms

onto pronunciations (phonological system of the language)

bull Popular distributional approaches to learning the sound system address rather non-abstract encodings of sounds at best

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 117: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

More Issueshellip

bull Is there distributional evidence for contrasts in the inputndash Maye et al children can learnndash Werker et al demonstration from JapaneseEnglish maternal speechndash How well does this scale beyond duration (1-dimensional)

bull Child needs to store all exemplarsbull Child needs to know all relevant dimensions

ndash This could yield at most phones not phonemesbull Why do children fail on minimal pair learning

ndash Inaccurate representations qualitatively different representationsndash Hard tasksndash Fennell et al context helps

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 118: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Questions about Development

bull Change from 6-12 months

ndash What changesbull Structure changing vs structure adding

ndash What causes change to occurbull Statistical distributions of sounds

ndash Reliably separable distributionsndash Storing and organizing tokens for analysisndash Knowing appropriate acoustic dimensionsndash Allophony eg k-palatalization in English

bull Why does it take so long

bull Change from 12-20 months

ndash What changesndash (Skepticism about the effect)ndash What causes change to occur

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 119: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

6-12 Months What Changes

(clunky diagram from Phillips 2001)

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 120: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Structure Changing

Patricia KuhlU of Washington

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 121: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Structure Adding

bull Evidence for Structure Adding(i) Some discrimination retained when sounds presented close together (eg Hindi d-D contrast)(ii) Discrimination abilities better when people hear sounds as non-speech(iii) Adults do better than 1-year olds on some sound contrasts

bull Evidence for Structure Changing(i) No evidence of preserved non-native category boundaries in vowel perception

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence
Page 122: Sound Categories Frequency - Tones Frequency - Complex Sounds.

Sources of Evidence

bull Structure-changing mostly from vowelsbull Structure-adding mostly from consonants

bull Conjecture structure-adding is correct in domains where there are natural articulatory (or acoustic) boundaries [cf Phillips 2001 Cogn Sci 25 711-731]

  • Sound Categories
  • Frequency - Tones
  • Frequency - Tones (2)
  • Frequency - Tones (3)
  • Frequency - Tones (4)
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds
  • Frequency - Complex Sounds (2)
  • Frequency - Vowels
  • Slide 9
  • Frequency - Male Vowels
  • Frequency - Male Vowels (2)
  • Frequency - Female Vowels
  • Frequency - Female Vowels (2)
  • Schedule
  • Timing - Voicing
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT)
  • English VOT production
  • Perceiving VOT
  • Discrimination
  • Discrimination (2)
  • Discrimination (3)
  • Discrimination (4)
  • Discrimination (5)
  • Discrimination (6)
  • Discrimination (7)
  • Discrimination (8)
  • Discrimination (9)
  • Discrimination (10)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • Cross-language Differences
  • Cross-language Differences (2)
  • Cross-Language Differences
  • Cross-Language Differences (2)
  • Russian
  • Slide 36
  • Discrimination (12)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (3)
  • Normal Distribution
  • The Empirical Rule
  • Normal Distribution (2)
  • Quantifying Sensitivity (4)
  • See Excel worksheet sensitivityxls
  • Quantifying Differences
  • Slide 47
  • Normal Distribution (3)
  • The Empirical Rule (2)
  • Slide 50
  • Slide 51
  • Slide 52
  • Slide 53
  • Development of Speech Perception in Infancy
  • Voice Onset Time (VOT) (2)
  • Perceiving VOT (2)
  • Discrimination (13)
  • Abstraction
  • Slide 59
  • Slide 60
  • Three Classics
  • Development of Speech Perception
  • Developmental Differentiation
  • 1 - Infant Categorical Perception
  • Discrimination (14)
  • Slide 66
  • English VOT Perception
  • General Infant Abilities
  • Universal Listeners
  • How can they do this
  • What About Non-Humans
  • Slide 72
  • 2 - Becoming a Native Listener
  • When does Change Occur
  • When does Change Occur (2)
  • What do Werkerrsquos results show
  • Korean has [l] amp [r]
  • 3 - What no minimal pairs
  • A Learning Theoryhellip
  • Slide 80
  • Word Learning
  • Slide 82
  • Slide 83
  • Slide 84
  • Word learning results
  • Why Yearlings Fail on Minimal Pairs
  • One-Year Olds Again
  • Maybe not so bad after all
  • Werker et al 2002
  • Slide 90
  • Swingley amp Aslin 2002
  • Alternatives to Reviving Jakobson
  • So how do infants learnhellip
  • Slide 94
  • Slide 95
  • Slide 96
  • Slide 97
  • Slide 98
  • Slide 99
  • Slide 100
  • Slide 101
  • Slide 102
  • Slide 103
  • Slide 104
  • Slide 105
  • Slide 106
  • Slide 107
  • Slide 108
  • Slide 109
  • Slide 110
  • Slide 111
  • Slide 112
  • Slide 113
  • Slide 114
  • Slide 115
  • Slide 116
  • Slide 117
  • Slide 118
  • Slide 119
  • Slide 120
  • Slide 121
  • Slide 122
  • Slide 123
  • Slide 124
  • Slide 125
  • Slide 126
  • Slide 127
  • Slide 128
  • Slide 129
  • Slide 130
  • Slide 131
  • Slide 132
  • Slide 133
  • Slide 134
  • Slide 135
  • Questions
  • Slide 137
  • Slide 138
  • Slide 139
  • So how do infants learnhellip (2)
  • Abstraction in Infant Speech Encoding
  • Slide 142
  • More Issueshellip
  • Questions about Development
  • 6-12 Months What Changes
  • Structure Changing
  • Structure Adding
  • Sources of Evidence

Owner’s Manual Play - klangfarbe.com · the Piano ˙ Play various sounds This unit contains a wide variety of tones (sounds). ... “Let’s Enjoy Piano.” Hanon The Virtuoso Pianist

Owner’s Manual Play - klangfarbe.com · the Piano ˙ Play various sounds This unit contains a wide variety of tones (sounds). ... “Let’s Enjoy Piano.” Hanon The Virtuoso Pianist

Access to high-frequency speech sounds with … us/main/download...whitepaper – 2015 Oticon Frequency Lowering Access to high-frequency speech sounds with Speech Rescue technology

Access to high-frequency speech sounds with … us/main/download...whitepaper – 2015 Oticon Frequency Lowering Access to high-frequency speech sounds with Speech Rescue technology

Optimized reduction of spur tones in fractional frequency ...ims.unipv.it/~franco/JournalPaper/112.pdf · particular, the Fractional Frequency Synthesizers [1] used in many communication

Optimized reduction of spur tones in fractional frequency ...ims.unipv.it/~franco/JournalPaper/112.pdf · particular, the Fractional Frequency Synthesizers [1] used in many communication

d2n0lz049icia2.cloudfront.net · Web viewIn this activity you will explore the characteristics of different sounds, the waves that produce sounds, and the fundamentals of frequency

d2n0lz049icia2.cloudfront.net · Web viewIn this activity you will explore the characteristics of different sounds, the waves that produce sounds, and the fundamentals of frequency

Owner’s Manual Play · the Piano ˙ Play various sounds This unit contains a wide variety of tones (sounds). You can freely select and perform using these tones. ˙ Play two layered

Owner’s Manual Play · the Piano ˙ Play various sounds This unit contains a wide variety of tones (sounds). You can freely select and perform using these tones. ˙ Play two layered

High Frequency Words (from Letters and Sounds) Spelling Journal

High Frequency Words (from Letters and Sounds) Spelling Journal

CH. 21 Musical Sounds. Musical Tones have three main characteristics 1)Pitch 2) Loudness 3)Quality.

CH. 21 Musical Sounds. Musical Tones have three main characteristics 1)Pitch 2) Loudness 3)Quality.

BEHAVIOR Time-Pattern and Frequency Analyses of Sounds … · 2008-05-15 · BEHAVIOR Time-Pattern and Frequency Analyses of Sounds Produced by Irradiated and Untreated Male Bactrocera

BEHAVIOR Time-Pattern and Frequency Analyses of Sounds … · 2008-05-15 · BEHAVIOR Time-Pattern and Frequency Analyses of Sounds Produced by Irradiated and Untreated Male Bactrocera

A fundamental frequency estimation method for tonal sounds ... · A fundamental frequency estimation method for tonal sounds inspired on bird song studies C. Jarne September 25, 2017

A fundamental frequency estimation method for tonal sounds ... · A fundamental frequency estimation method for tonal sounds inspired on bird song studies C. Jarne September 25, 2017

Direct CFD Predictions of Low Frequency Sounds

Direct CFD Predictions of Low Frequency Sounds

Sound Physics. Sound Source All sounds are produced by the vibrations of material objects The frequency of sounds is often described by the word pitch.

Sound Physics. Sound Source All sounds are produced by the vibrations of material objects The frequency of sounds is often described by the word pitch.

Processing of novel sounds and frequency changes in the ...

Processing of novel sounds and frequency changes in the ...

Responses of the Ear to Low Frequency Sounds, Infrasound and ...

Responses of the Ear to Low Frequency Sounds, Infrasound and ...

E-Motor NVH from electric current to noise · 2019-10-31 · • Very high frequency sounds • Off-zero orders • Related to PWM switching frequency 50.00 Hz 12000.00 Frequency

E-Motor NVH from electric current to noise · 2019-10-31 · • Very high frequency sounds • Off-zero orders • Related to PWM switching frequency 50.00 Hz 12000.00 Frequency

Frequency (pitch): Dimension of frequency determined by wavelength of sound…measured in hertz (Hz) Humans can hear sounds at frequencies from about 20Hz.

Frequency (pitch): Dimension of frequency determined by wavelength of sound…measured in hertz (Hz) Humans can hear sounds at frequencies from about 20Hz.

VARIOUS TONES USED IN NATIONAL NETWORKS … to ITU OB 781-E 3 Various tones used in national networks COUNTRY/TONE FREQUENCY in Hz CADENCE in seconds Albania (Republic of) Busy tone

VARIOUS TONES USED IN NATIONAL NETWORKS … to ITU OB 781-E 3 Various tones used in national networks COUNTRY/TONE FREQUENCY in Hz CADENCE in seconds Albania (Republic of) Busy tone

ROBOTC Sounds ROBOTC with the VEX has a speaker port available on it for playing basic and polyphonic tones. You can play the follow types of sounds: –

ROBOTC Sounds ROBOTC with the VEX has a speaker port available on it for playing basic and polyphonic tones. You can play the follow types of sounds: –

Us4205203 methods and apparatus for digitally signaling sounds and tones in a pcm multiplex system

Us4205203 methods and apparatus for digitally signaling sounds and tones in a pcm multiplex system

Non-Harmonic Tones NH Tones - Ted Greene

Non-Harmonic Tones NH Tones - Ted Greene

High-Frequency Burst-Pulse Sounds in · PDF fileHigh-Frequency Burst-Pulse Sounds in Agonistic ... sonar sounds and to describe their repetition rate patterns and ... During the recordings

High-Frequency Burst-Pulse Sounds in · PDF fileHigh-Frequency Burst-Pulse Sounds in Agonistic ... sonar sounds and to describe their repetition rate patterns and ... During the recordings