2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What infant-directed speech tells us about the development of compensation for assimilation

Abstract: In speech addressed to adults, words are seldom realized in their canonical, or citation, form. For example, the word 'green' in the phrase 'green beans' can often be realized as 'greem' due to English place assimilation, where word-final coronals take on the place of articulation of neighboring velars. In such a situation, adult listeners readily 'undo' the assimilatory process and perceive the underlying intended lexical form of 'greem' (i.e., they access the lexical representation 'green'). An interesting d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, even though our algorithms covered a wide range of hypotheses regarding early word segmentation, they may differ in critical ways from the algorithms and input used by infants. For example, words here were systematically attributed a pronunciation from a dictionary, and thus did not capture the possible application of phonological rules and other sources of variation that cause a single underlying word to have many different surface forms (see Buckler, Goy, & Johnson, 2018, for phonetic variability in CDS versus ADS differently; and Elsner, Goldwater, Feldman, & Wood, 2013, for a possible incorporation of phonetic variability in segmentation algorithms). Such variability will most greatly affect the discovery of paradigms (i.e., figuring out that “what is that” can also be pronounced “whaz that”), and not necessarily segmentation of word forms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, even though our algorithms covered a wide range of hypotheses regarding early word segmentation, they may differ in critical ways from the algorithms and input used by infants. For example, words here were systematically attributed a pronunciation from a dictionary, and thus did not capture the possible application of phonological rules and other sources of variation that cause a single underlying word to have many different surface forms (see Buckler, Goy, & Johnson, 2018, for phonetic variability in CDS versus ADS differently; and Elsner, Goldwater, Feldman, & Wood, 2013, for a possible incorporation of phonetic variability in segmentation algorithms). Such variability will most greatly affect the discovery of paradigms (i.e., figuring out that “what is that” can also be pronounced “whaz that”), and not necessarily segmentation of word forms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, infants may have trouble recognizing different versions of the same word produced in different emotions (e.g., Singh, Morgan, & White, 2004), or by different speakers (e.g., Houston & Jusczyk, 2000). Further, the notion that infant-directed speech is a cleaned up version of adult-directed speech-and that children are only exposed to standard forms (or even predominantly standard forms)-is not consistently supported by corpus analyses (e.g., Buckler, Goy, & Johnson, 2018;Lahey & Ernestus, 2013;Shockey & Bond, 1980;Smith, Durham, & Fortune, 2007).…”
Section: When Do Children Acquire Variation?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One possibility is that infants merely need more input. It is possible that we tested infants at an Finally, it is possible that infants' learning of the [t]-tap mapping in English is complicated by the fact that /t/ in conversational speech can surface as a glottalized variant, including a full glottal stop, or it can even be entirely deleted, in addition to its tapped realization (Dilley et al 2019;Buckler, Goy & Johnson, 2018). This added variability might further contribute to the difficulty of learning the [t]-tap mapping.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%