Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:35:50.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of part-word phonotactic probability/neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children varying in expressive vocabulary*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2010

HOLLY L. STORKEL  and
JILL R. HOOVER
HOLLY L. STORKEL*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
JILL R. HOOVER
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
[*]Address for correspondence: Holly Storkel, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and Disorders, University of Kansas, 3001 Dole Human Development Center, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045-7555. e-mail: hstorkel@ku.edu. Jill R. Hoover is now at Indiana University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine the influence of part-word phonotactic probability/neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children with normal vocabularies that varied in size. Ninety-eight children (age 2 ; 11–6 ; 0) were taught consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonwords orthogonally varying in the probability/density of the CV (i.e. body) and VC (i.e. rhyme). Learning was measured via picture naming. Children with the lowest expressive vocabulary scores showed no effect of either CV or VC probability/density, although floor effects could not be ruled out. In contrast, children with low or high expressive vocabulary scores demonstrated sensitivity to part-word probability/density with the nature of the effect varying by group. Children with the highest expressive vocabulary scores displayed yet a third pattern of part-word probability/density effects. Taken together, word learning by preschool children was influenced by part-word probability/density but the nature of this influence appeared to depend on the size of the lexicon.

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 628 - 643
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by NIH Grants DC 08095, DC 00052, DC009135, DC 05803 and HD02528. The following individuals contributed to data collection, data processing or analysis: Andrew Aschenbrenner, Teresa Brown, Jennie Fox, Andrea Giles, Nicole Hayes, Jennica Kilwein, Su-Yeon Lee, Junko Maekawa, Shannon Rogers, Mariza Rosales, Josie Row, Katie Shatzer, Maki Sueto, Courtney Winn.

References

REFERENCES

ASHA (1997). Guidelines for screening for hearing impairment-preschool children, 3–5 years. Asha 4, IV-74cc-IV-74ee.Google Scholar
Brownell, R. (2000a). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test, 3rd edn.Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.Google Scholar
Brownell, R. (2000b). Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test, 2nd edn.Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G. & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition 89, 105–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gasser, M. & Smith, L. B. (1998). Learning nouns and adjectives: A connectionist account. Language and Cognitive Processes. Special Issue: Language acquisition and connectionism 13, 269–306.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Frankish, C. R., Pickering, S. J. & Peaker, S. (1999). Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25, 84–95.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman–Fristoe Test of Articulation-2. Circles Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases. Brain and Language. Special Issue: Computer models of impaired language 59, 267–333.Google Scholar
Jarvis, B. G. (2002). DirectRT research software (Version 2002). New York, NY: Empirisoft.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. E. & Schuster, J. M. (1991). Young children's disambiguation of object name reference. Child Development 62, 1288–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Memory and Cognition 25, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J. L. & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In Metsala, J. L. & Ehri, L. C. (eds), Word recognition in beginning literacy, 89–120. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B. & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon. In Research on Spoken Language Processing Report No. 10, 357–76. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E. & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55, 779–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 1321–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004a). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004b). The emerging lexicon of children with phonological delays: Phonotactic constraints and probability in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1194–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004c). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1454–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language 36, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L., Armbruster, J. & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 1175–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Hoover, J. R. (2006). Whole-word versus part-word phonotactic probability/ neighborhood density in word learning by children. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. & Hoover, J. R. (2010). An on-line calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density based on child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods 42, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. & Maekawa, J. (2005). A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: The role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language 32, 827–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, D. & Aslin, R. N. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition 76, 147–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, J. M., Richardson, U. & Goswami, U. (2005). Phonological similarity neighborhoods and children's short-term memory: Typical development and dyslexia. Memory & Cognition 33, 1210–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28, 270–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S., Armbruster, J. & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J. C. & Goswami, U. C. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed