The Role of Input Variability and Learner Age in Second Language Vocabulary Learning

Abstract

Input variability is key in many aspects of linguistic learning, yet variability increases input complexity, which may cause difficulty in some learning contexts. The current work investigates this trade-off by comparing speaker variability effects on L2 vocabulary learning in different age-groups. Existing literature suggests that speaker variability benefits L2 vocabulary learning in adults, but this may not be the case for younger learners. In this study, native Englishspeaking adults, 7-8 year-olds, and 10-11 year-olds learned six novel Lithuanian words from a single speaker, and six from eight speakers. In line with previous research, adults showed better production of the multi-speaker items at test. No such benefit was found for either group of children either in production or comprehension. Children also had greater difficulties in processing multiple-speaker cues during training. We conclude that age-related capacity limitations may constrain the ability to utilise speaker variability when learning words in a new language.Learning early stages of word learning (~14 months). A surprising finding is that even if infants have apparently mastered a particular phoneme contrast in their native language they may have difficulties learning novel words which differ only in this contrast. For example, Stager and Werker (1997) found that although 14-month-olds could discriminate /b/ and /d/, they could not successfully differentiate the novel minimal pair words /bɪ/ and /dɪ/ in a word learning context. This effect has been demonstrated many times (see Werker & Curtin, 2005, for a review). (2009) demonstrated that when the novel minimal pair words (/buk/ and /puk/ in their study) were spoken by multiple speakers, infants of the same age were successful in mapping each novel minimal-pair word onto a novel object. Further studies and computational modelling suggest that this difference is due to the fact that when the words are spoken by a single speaker, consistent cues from that speaker become associated with the object and this occurs at the expense of phonetically relevant cues (Apfelbaum & McMurray, 2011;Rost & McMurray, 2010; cf. Galle et al., 2015, for evidence that the benefit of variability does not rely on multiple speakers per se, since similar effects are seen from a single speaker who deliberately varies mean pitch, pitch contour, and duration of word tokens). Note that this account assumes that word learning is an associative process in which even linguistically irrelevant cues may be incorporated into lexical representations, at least in the early stages of learning. Critically, however, Rost and McMurrayThere is also evidence that speaker variability may benefit word learning in older children. Richtsmeier et al. (2009) taught 4-year old English-speaking children novel English nonce words (i.e., adhering to English phonology and phonotactics) associated with novel animal 5pictures. Words that had been presented in multiple voices were later repeated faster and more accurately than words that had been ...

The effects of high versus low talker variability and individual aptitude on phonetic training of Mandarin lexical tones

“…This suggests that increasing encoding difficulty can remove the benefits of multi-speaker exposure. Relatedly, Sinkeviciute et al (2019) found that young learners have greater difficulty processing multi-speaker training materials in L2 vocabulary learning, and subsequently fail to show a speaker-variability benefit at test. One interpretation of these findings is that age-related capacity limitations may constrain the ability to benefit from speaker variability, supporting the notion that differences in capacity limitations can affect an individual’s ability to benefit from multi-talker training.…”

Modelling L1 and the artificial language during artificial language learning

“…Here, too, learners already equipped with their L1 knowledge are faced with L2 language material. The only difference is that here L2 material is often a real language as, for instance, the Lithuanian words that are taught to English native learners in Sinkeviciute et al (2019). Most often, trained input consists of only few words.…”

“…While the selection of training words in ALL may depend on the criteria of being similar and yet different to the L1 of the speakers, the selection of training words in SLA research may depend mainly on the criteria of structural simplicity, concreteness, and learner-friendliness (Sinkeviciute et al, 2019).…”

Training Child Learners On Non-Native Vowel Contrasts with Phonetic Training: The Role of Task and Variability

“…It is worth noting that while the above discussion has focussed on generalisation, many of these studies also investigated the difference between HV and LV input during training itself (i.e., tracking trial-by-trial performance in training), often finding an LV advantage (Perrachione et al 2011, Dong et al 2019, Giannakopoulou et al 2017, Evans & Martín-Alvarez 2016, indicating greater ease in processing single-talker input. In another training study comparing HV and LV materials for L2 vocabulary learning, Sinkevičiūtė, Brown, Brekelmans, & Wonnacott (2019) show a difference in adult and child learning. In this study, English speaking adults, 7-8 year-olds and 10-11 year-olds were trained on L2 vocabulary using a picture identification game, with words produced by either a single-talker (LV), or multiple talkers (HV).…”

“…The current study aimed to investigate whether children show an HV advantage in phonetic training of L2 contrasts. Participants were two groups of native Dutch primary school children: 7-8 year olds (matching Giannakopoulou et al 2017, Evans & Martín-Alvarez 2016, Sinkevičiūtė 2019 and 11-12 year-olds. Note that this older age-group was chosen in light of the already generally strong knowledge of English in Dutch adolescents and adults, 1 and this choice also allowed us to make an age comparison whilst recruiting children from within the same schools (11-12 years are the oldest age group in Dutch primary schools).…”