Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:33:02.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From sound to syntax: phonological constraints on children's lexical categorization of new words*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2008

STANKA A. FITNEVA*
Affiliation:
Queen's University
MORTEN H. CHRISTIANSEN
Affiliation:
Cornell University
PADRAIC MONAGHAN
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Address for correspondence: Stanka A. Fitneva, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. e-mail: fitneva@queensu.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two studies examined the role of phonological cues in the lexical categorization of new words when children could also rely on learning by exclusion and whether the role of phonology depends on extensive experience with a language. Phonological cues were assessed via phonological typicality – an aggregate measure of the relationship between the phonology of a word and the phonology of words in the same lexical class. Experiment 1 showed that when monolingual English-speaking seven-year-olds could rely on learning by exclusion, phonological typicality only affected their initial inferences about the words. Consistent with recent computational analyses, phonological cues had stronger impact on the processing of verb-like than noun-like items. Experiment 2 revealed an impact of French on the performance of seven-year-olds in French immersion when tested in a French language environment. Thus, phonological knowledge may affect lexical categorization even in the absence of extensive experience.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Illustration of the procedure. On trial i, children have not seen either picture, and only phonology (and guessing) can guide their selection of a referent for the word skik. On trial i+n, children already have a label for one of the pictures. Thus, they may rely on exclusion in selecting a referent for posp. note: the pictures in the figure are not actual stimuli from the study.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Proportion of times children selected the picture corresponding to the phonological typicality of the pseudo-word on phonology-only trials and phonology/exclusion trials in Block 1 of Experiment 1. * indicates probability greater than chance, p<0·05.

Figure 2

TABLE 1. Accuracy scores in Experiment 1 by condition, pseudo-word phonological typicality and block

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Proportion of times children selected the object picture on phonology-only trials and phonology/exclusion trials in Block 1 of Experiment 2. * p<0·05.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Proportion of times children selected the picture corresponding to the English phonological typicality of the pseudo-word on phonology-only trials and phonology/exclusion trials in Block 1 of Experiment 2. * p<0·05.

Figure 5

TABLE 2. Accuracy scores in Experiment 2 by language-of-test condition, pseudo-word phonological typicality in English and block

Figure 6

TABLE A1. Examples of computing Euclidean distance between the pseudo-wordhaps and the wordspeer and street

Figure 7

note 1: