4.2 Article

Domain-General Mechanisms for Speech Segmentation: The Role of Duration Information in Language Learning

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000325

关键词

iambic/trochaic law; language acquisition; speech segmentation; transitional probabilities; visual sequences

资金

  1. ESRC [RES-000-22-1538]
  2. International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L008955/1]
  4. ESRC [ES/L008955/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-000-22-1538, ES/L008955/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Speech segmentation is supported by multiple sources of information that may either inform language processing specifically, or serve learning more broadly. The Iambic/Trochaic Law (ITL), where increased duration indicates the end of a group and increased emphasis indicates the beginning of a group, has been proposed as a domain-general mechanism that also applies to language. However, language background has been suggested to modulate use of the ITL, meaning that these perceptual grouping preferences may instead be a consequence of language exposure. To distinguish between these accounts, we exposed native-English and native-Japanese listeners to sequences of speech (Experiment 1) and nonspeech stimuli (Experiment 2), and examined segmentation using a 2AFC task. Duration was manipulated over 3 conditions: sequences contained either an initial-item duration increase, or a final-item duration increase, or items of uniform duration. In Experiment 1, language background did not affect the use of duration as a cue for segmenting speech in a structured artificial language. In Experiment 2, the same results were found for grouping structured sequences of visual shapes. The results are consistent with proposals that duration information draws upon a domain-general mechanism that can apply to the special case of language acquisition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据