bilingual beginnings to learning words - concordia · pdf filebilingual beginnings to learning...

RUNNINGHEAD:Bilingualbeginningstolearningwords

1

Bilingualbeginningstolearningwords

JanetF.Werker1*,KristaByers‐Heinlein1,andChristopherT.Fennell2

1DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofBritishColumbia,2136WestMall,Vancouver,BritishColumbia,Canada,V6T1Z4

2SchoolofPsychology&DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofOttawa,145Jean‐JacquesLussier

Street,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada,

K1N6N5*Correspondingauthor([email protected])

FullReference:Werker,J.F.,Byers‐Heinlein,K.,&Fennell,C.T.2009.Bilingualbeginningstolearningwords.PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB,364,3649‐3663.


2

AbstractAtthemacrostructureleveloflanguagemilestones,languageacquisitionfollowsanearlyidenticalcoursewhetherchildrengrowupwithoneorwithtwolanguages.Howeveratthemicrostructurelevel,experimentalresearchisrevealingthatthesameproclivitiesandlearningmechanismsthatsupportlanguageacquisitionunfoldsomewhatdifferentlyinbilingualversusmonolingualenvironments.Thispapersynthesizesrecentfindingsintheareaofearlybilingualism,byfocusingonthequestionofhowbilingualinfantscometoapplytheirphoneticsensitivitiestowordlearning,astheymusttolearnminimalpairwords(e.g.“cat”and“mat”).Tothisend,thepaperreviewsantecedentachievementsbybilingualsthroughoutinfancyandearlychildhoodinthefollowingareas:languagediscriminationandseparation,speechperception,phoneticandphonotacticdevelopment,wordrecognition,wordlearning,andaspectsofconceptualdevelopmentthatunderliewordlearning.Specialconsiderationisgiventotheroleoflanguagedominance,andtotheuniquechallengestolanguageacquisitionposedbyabilingualenvironment.Keywords:Bilingualism,languagedevelopment,infancy,speechperception,wordlearning,effectsoflinguisticexperience.


3

IntroductionTheabilitytoacquirelanguageisoneofthehallmarksofourspecies,deeplyembeddedinour

biology.Giventheenormouscomplexityoflanguage,itisremarkablehowchildrenacquiretheirnativelanguagesoquicklyandseeminglywithouteffort.Languagesemployunitsandpatternsatseverallevelsfromspeechsoundstomorphemes,words,clauses,andsentences,todescribetheworldandourthoughts,beliefs,feelings,andplansaboutit.Toacquiretheirnativelanguagechildrenneedtolearnnotonlytheindividualwordsofthatlanguage,buttheregularitiesateverylevel,includingtheknowledgeofwhatinformationisexpressedwhere.Bilinguallanguageacquisitionpresentstheproblemofacquiringtwosuchinterlockingsetsofregularitiessimultaneously.Asseeminglydifficultasthischallengeis,manyoftheworld’schildrengrowuplearningtwonativelanguagesatthesametime,withthesameapparenteasethatmonolingualsshowinacquiringasinglelanguage(Werker&Byers‐Heinlein2008).

Areasonablequestioniswhethertheacquisitionoftwolinguisticsystemsmeansthatbilingualinfantsfollowadifferentcourseoflanguageacquisitionfrommonolinguals.Untilveryrecently,thebulkoftheresearchaddressingthisquestionwaseitherobservationalorcorrelationalinnature.Onthebasisofsuchstudies,therewasgeneralagreementthatbilingualandmonolingualchildrenpasscriticalmilestonesinlanguageacquisitionatapproximatelythesameage(DeHouwer1995;Olleretal.1997;Pearson&Fernández1994;Petittoetal.2001),andthatsame‐agedbilingualandmonolingualchildrenhaverelativelyequalsizedvocabularieswhenthevocabularyofbothlanguagesistakenintoaccount(Pearson&Fernández1994;Petittoetal.2001;Pearsonetal.1995;Paradis&Nicoladis2008).Indeed,somereportsofearlycomprehensionhavefoundthatbilingualshavealargeroverallvocabularythansame‐agedmonolingualpeers(DeHouweretal.2008).Atadescriptivelevel,then,itappearsthatthedevelopmentalsequenceofbilinguallanguageacquisitionconformstothatofmonolingualacquisition.

Yet,aninvestigationofdevelopmentalmilestonescannotrevealthewholestoryofhowmonolingualandbilingualacquisitioncompare.Cross‐linguisticstudiesofmonolingualacquisitionshowthatalthoughallchildrenacquirethephonology,morphology,syntax,andsemanticsoftheirnativelanguagewithinthefirstfewyearsoflife,thestructuralpropertiesoftheparticularlanguagetheyarelearningcaninfluenceboththeageandtheorderinwhichdifferentstructuresaremastered.Thus,itisreasonabletoconsiderhowexposuretotwolanguagessimultaneouslycouldalsoinfluencethemicrostructureoflanguageacquisitioninbilingualchildren.

Thereiseveryreasontopresupposethatidenticalproclivitiesandlearningmechanismsunderliebothmonolingualandbilingualacquisition,butthattheinputdifferencesactivatethesemechanismsindifferentways,bothintermsoftiminganddegree.Thegoalofourresearch,andofthisreview,istounderstandhowtheseoperate.Specifically,bystudyingbilingualacquisition,wecanshedlightonwhichaspectsofacquisitionremainconstantandwhichchange–andinwhatways–inresponsetoinputfromtwodifferentlanguages.Aswehopewillbeilluminatedinthefollowingpages,thisapproachultimatelyfurthersunderstandingofhowstronglyconservedbiasesandgenerallearningmechanismsworktogethertoenablelanguageacquisition.

Afullcharacterizationofthemicrostructureofbilingualacquisitionisbeyondthescopeofthispaper,soherewefocusononetopicthatillustrateshowbilingualinfantsbegintointegratemultiplelanguagesystems:theapplicationofphoneticsensitivitiestowordlearningandwordrecognition.Thisisaparticularlyillustrativeexamplebecauseitrequiresanexaminationofbothphoneticdevelopmentandwordlearning,aswellastheirintersection.Byinvestigatingearly‐acquiredperceptualprocesses(phoneticperception)andlater‐acquiredconceptualprocesses(wordlearning),itwillgiveusclearwindowintobilinguallanguagedevelopmentthroughouttheinfancyperiodwhileretainingfocusononecentralquestion.However,beforedescribinghowbilingualinfantsusesounddetailinwordforms,we


4

mustdiscussthenecessaryantecedentforsuccessfulbilingualacquisition:theseparationanddiscriminationofthetwolanguages.

Languagediscrimination Aprerequisiteforsuccessfulbilingualacquisitionisanabilitytodiscriminatethetwolanguagesthatarebeingacquired.Aninfantgrowingupbilingualmustsomehownoticethattheinputisstructuredwithrespecttotwolanguagesratherthanjustonelanguage,andmustbeabletosegregatetheinputfromeachlanguage.Itwasoncebelievedthatbilingual‐learninginfantsconfusetheirtwolanguagesatthebeginningoflife,andonlygraduallycometopullthemapartafterbeginningtoestablishavocabularyineach(Volterra&Taeschner1978).Thefirstlarge‐scalestudytoseriouslychallengethisviewcomesfromtheworkofBarbaraPearson.Sheshowedthatevenintheearlieststagesofvocabularyacquisition,wheninfantsareonlyabletosay12wordsorfewer,bilingualinfantscanproducetranslationequivalents–wordswiththesamemeaningineachoftheirlanguages(Pearson,Fernandez&Oller1995).Thisfindingshowedthatyoungbilingualsdonotavoidlearningtwowordsforthesamethingwhenthosewordsareindifferentlanguages,implyingthatthetwolanguagesarepulledapartfromthebeginning(seealsoVihman1985,forsimilarevidencefromacasestudy).Otherresearchhasshownassoonastheybeginspeaking,youngbilingualsusethewordsappropriatelydependingonthelanguagespokenbytheirinterlocutor(Geneseeetal.1995;1996).Anabilitytomodulatetheuseoftwolanguagesfurthersuggestsanabilitytodistinguishthem.AuditoryLanguageDiscrimination

Thereisevidencethateveninthefirstmonthsoflife,bilingualinfantshaveperceptualabilitiesthatallowthemtodiscriminatetheirtwolanguages.Thefirsttestofthiscamefromastudywithbilingual4‐month‐oldSpanish‐Catalan‐learninginfants(Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallés2001).Infantswerefirstfamiliarizedtosentencesfromonelanguageortheother.Followingfamiliarization,theyweretestedinaheadturnpreferenceprocedure.Inthistask,aflashinglightdrawstheinfants’attentiontoonesideofatestingbooth.Sentencesfromoneofthelanguagesareplayedaslongastheinfantorientstowardsthelight.Ifinfantscandiscriminatebetweenthetwolanguages,theyareexpectedtoshowadifferentreactionwhenthefamiliarizedlanguageisplayedthanwhenthenon‐familiarizedlanguageisplayed.Inthisstudy,Spanish‐Catalanbilingualsshowedtheexpected“noveltypreference”oflookinglongerduringtrialswhenthenon‐familiarizedlanguagewasplayed.Indeed,theirabilitytodiscriminatethetwolanguageswassimilartothatshownbymonolingualinfantsofthesameage.ThestrengthofthisfindingliesinthefactthatSpanishandCatalanarerhythmicallysimilarlanguages.Pastresearchwithmonolingualnewborns(Nazzietal.1998;Mehleretal.1988),and5‐month‐olds(Nazzietal.2000)hasshownthatdiscriminationofrhythmicallysimilarlanguagesisnotevidentatbirth,butinsteaddevelopsoverthefirstfewmonthsoflifeinrelationtolanguageexperience(Nazzi&Ramus2003).Thus,thediscriminationofSpanishandCatalanpresentsthemoststringenttestofbilingualinfants’abilitytodistinguishtheirnativelanguagesearlyindevelopment.

Althoughintheheadturnpreferenceproceduredescribedabove,monolingualsandbilingualsshowsimilarperformance,analternateprocedurefortestinglanguagediscriminationinbilingualinfantshassuggestedsomedifferencesinthemicrostructureofhowdiscriminationproceeds(Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallés1997).Inastudythatreliedonlanguagerecognition,Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallésassessedlanguagediscriminationviainfants’latencytoorienttothenativelanguageversustheirlatencytoorienttoanunfamiliarlanguage.Whenpresentedwithaflashinglighttooneortheotherside,accompaniedbyeitherthenativelanguageoranunfamiliarlanguage,monolingualinfantsaged4monthsorientmorerapidlytothelightwhenthenativelanguageispresented(Bosch&Sebastián‐


5

Gallés1997;Dehaene‐Lambertz&Houston1998).However,bilingual4‐month‐oldsshowaverydifferentpattern:theyorientmorerapidlytoanunfamiliarlanguagethantoanativelanguage(Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallés1997).Apossibleexplanationforthisfindingisthatbilingualsfirsttrytoascertainwhichoftheirtwonativelanguagesisbeingspokenbeforeorienting,thusdelayingtheirorientationtime.Suchastrategymightberelatedtoprecociousinhibitoryskillsininfantsgrowingupbilingual(Kovács&Mehler2009).Theseresultshintthatalthoughmonolingualsandbilingualsmayhavesimilarcapacitiesforlanguagediscrimination,themicrostructureofhowdiscriminationproceedsmaybedifferentbetweenthetwogroups.

Toinvestigatetherootsofbilinguallanguagediscrimination,weturnedtonewborns.Previousresearchhassuggestedthatexperiencewiththenativelanguageduringthelastmonthsofpregnancycanresultinpreferenceforthatlanguage(Moonetal.1993).WecomparedpreferenceofEnglishversusFilipinoinauniquegroupofnewborninfants:thosewhohadreceivedprenatalexposuretobothEnglishandFilipinobecausetheirmothershadspokenbothlanguagesthroughoutpregnancy.WealsotestednewbornswhohadbeenprenatallyexposedtoonlyEnglishontheirlanguagepreference.Toassesspreference,newbornssuckedonapacifierattachedtoacomputerthatregisteredtheirsuckingstrengthandfrequency.Sentences,whichwerelow‐passfilteredtoreducesurfacesegmentalcueswhilepreservingrhythmicinformation,werepresentedinalternatingminutesineitherEnglishorFilipino.WhilemonolingualssuckedmoretohearEnglishsentencesthanFilipinosentences,bilingualsshowednodifferenceintheirsuckingtosentencesinthetwolanguages(Byers‐Heinleinetal.2008).Oneinterpretationofthesedataisthatlearningleadstoapreferenceforfamiliarity,thuspreparingtheEnglishexposedneonatestolistenselectivelytoEnglishandthebilingualexposedneonatestobesimilarlyinterestedinbothlanguages.However,analternativeinterpretationisthatthebilingualneonatesshownopreferencebecausetheirlisteningexperiencehaseliminatedtheirabilitytodiscriminatethetwolanguages.Totestdiscrimination,wehabituatedtheinfantstosentencesfromonelanguage(eitherEnglishorFilipino)untiltheirsuckingfrequencydeclined.Wethenswitchedthesoundstonewsentencesfromthesamelanguage(thecontrolgroup)ornewsentencesfromtheotherlanguage(theexperimentalgroup).Thecontrolgroupshowednoincreaseinsucking,hencenoevidenceofdiscrimination.Asexpectedfrompreviouswork,English‐onlyexposednewbornsincreasedtheirsuckingwhentheyheardsentencesfromanewlanguage,butimportantly,neonateswhohadheardbothlanguagesinuteroalsoincreasedtheirsucking.Theseresultsshowthatneonateswhohaveheardtworhythmicallydistinctlanguagesthroughoutgestationcandiscriminatetheirtwolanguagesfrombirth,anessentialfoundationfortheseparationandultimateacquisitionoftheirtwolanguages.

Moreover,theseresultsshowthatthesameinitialproclivities(discrimination)andlearningmechanisms(preference)operatetopreparethemonolingualinfanttoattendpreferentiallyto,andultimatelyacquireonlyasinglelanguageandthebilingualinfanttoattendtotwonativelanguages,whilenonethelessnotconfusingthem.Thisillustrateshowcomparingthemicrostructureofacquisitioninbilingualascomparedtomonolingualinfantscanilluminateourunderstandingoflanguageacquisitioningeneral.

VisualLanguageDiscrimination

Althoughauditorycuesmightseemthemostobviousrouteforlanguagediscrimination,the

multimodalnatureoflanguagemeansthatbabiesgrowingupbilingualmighthaveothercuesavailabletohelpthemtotelltheirlanguagesapart.Indeed,babiesareremarkablyadeptatusingwhateverinformationisavailableintheirworldtolearnitsregularities.Inanotherrecentsetofstudies,wecomparedmonolingualandbilingualinfantsontheirabilitytodiscriminatetwolanguagesvisually–thatisbywatchingsilenttalkingspeakerswhereintheonlycuestolanguageidentitywereinthemovementsoftheface(Weikumetal.2007).WehabituatedbothEnglishmonolingualandFrench‐Englishbilingual


6

infantstovideodisplaysofthreebilingualspeakersrecitingsentencesinonelanguage,withthesoundturnedoffsothatonlyvisualinformationwasavailable.Onceinfantsshowedadeclineininterestinthesevideos,theywereshownthesamethreespeakerseitherrecitingnewsentencesintheoriginallanguage,ornewsentencesintheotherlanguage.Monolingualinfantsweretestedat4‐,6‐,and8‐months‐of‐ageandbilingualFrench‐Englishinfantsweretestedat6‐and8‐months.Atthetwoyoungerages,themonolingualinfantswereabletodiscriminateEnglishandFrenchjustbywatchingsilenttalkingfaces,butat8‐months‐of‐agethemonolingualinfantsnolongersucceeded.Incontrast,thebilingualinfantssuccessfullydiscriminatedEnglishfromFrenchatboth6‐and8‐months‐of‐age,therebycontinuingtodiscriminatethetwolanguagesatanagewhenmonolingualsfailed.

Asinsomanyotheraspectsofperceptualdevelopment,infantsseemtobeginlifewithabroadsensitivitytoanydistinctiveperceptualdetail,withtheeffectofexperiencebeingoneofmaintainingsensitivitytothosefeaturesthatareimportantinthenativeculturalenvironment,andaconcomitantdecreaseinsensitivitytothosethatarenot(Pascalisetal.2002;Werkeretal.2008;Werker&Tees1999).Inthecaseofvisuallanguagediscrimination,eachgroupofinfantsbehavesoptimallyfortheirlanguage‐learningsituation.Maintenanceofasensitivitytocuesintalkingfacesthatdistinguishonelanguagefromanotherprovidesyetanothersourceofinformationthatcouldcontributetolanguageseparationforthebilingualchild.NativePhoneticCategories:Learningthesoundsoftwonativelanguages

Soundsarethebuildingblocksofwords.Tounderstandwordlearninginthebilingualcontext,itispivotaltoconsiderhowinfantsdevelopthesoundsystemsoftheirlanguages.Thesmallestunitthatdistinguishesmeaninginalanguageisthephoneme.Thesetofphonemesusedtodistinguishmeaningvariesfromlanguagetolanguage.ForexampleEnglishuses/r/and/l/todistinguishwordssuchas“rake”and“lake”whereasmanylanguages,includingJapanese,donot.Ontheotherhand,inJapanesethedifferencebetweenalongandashortvowelcansignaldifferenceinmeaning(e.g.“kado”corner,“kaado”card),whereasinEnglishitcannot.Inadditiontothesedifferencesinphonemeinventories,theprecisephoneticrealizationofanyparticularphonemevariesfromonelanguagetothenext.Awell‐knownexampleisthat“p”isdifferentinEnglishthaninFrench.InEnglishitisaspirated,withapuffofairatitsreleasewhereasinFrenchitisnot(seeCaramazza&Yeni‐Komshian1974foramorein‐depthdiscussionofthesedifferences).

Therearewell‐documentedachievementsinphoneticperceptioninthefirstyearoflifeininfantsgrowingupmonolingual.Veryyoungmonolingualinfantsareabletodiscriminatemanyofthespeechsounddistinctionsusedacrosstheworld’slanguages,includingdistinctionsthatarenotusedinthenativelanguage.Forexample,at6‐8months‐of‐agebothEnglish‐learningandHindilearninginfantsdiscriminatetwo“d”soundsthatareusedcontrastivelyinHindibutnotinEnglish,butby10‐12months‐of‐age,EnglishinfantsnolongerdiscriminatethisdistinctionwhereasHindi‐learninginfantsstilldo(Werker,Tees1984).Cross‐languagestudieswithinfantsexposedtoasinglelanguageshowlisteningexperiencewiththenativelanguageservestomaintain(Werker&Tees1984;Werkeretal.1981;Mattock&Burnham2006;Bakeretal.2006),improve(Kuhletal.2006;Narayanetal.underreview),andrealign(Burnsetal.2007)discriminationofthephoneticdistinctionsusedinthatlanguage.

Thepatternofphoneticlearningininfantsgrowingupbilingualshowsinterestingdifferencesandsimilaritiestomonolingualphoneticdevelopment.Justlikemonolinguals,bilingualsrefinetheirnativephoneticcategoriesinthefirstyearoflife,goingfrombeinguniversallistenerstonarrowing‐inonthenativecontrasts.However,bilingualinfantsmayhaveanintervalindevelopmentwhentheytemporarilycollapsesomenative‐languagecategoriesbeforesuccessfullypullingthemapartagain.WhileSpanish‐Catalanbilingualinfantsof4‐and12‐monthsdiscriminatevoweldistinctionsthatareusedonlyinCatalan,at8‐monthstheyperformlikemonolingualSpanishinfantswhodonothearthese


7

vowelsandfail(Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallés2003;Sebastián‐Gallés&Boschinpress).AsimilarpatternwasreportedbyBosch&Sebastián‐Gallésforaconsonantcontrastbetweenthefricativesounds,/s/vs./z/,thatisdistinguishedinCatalanbutnotinSpanish(Sebastián‐Gallésetal.2008).HereagainthereseemedtobeatemporarybroadeningofthephoneticcategoryinthebilingualinfantstoincludetwodifferentCatalansoundsasinstancesofasinglephoneticcategory.Inthiscase,thedeclineinsensitivitytoandre‐emergenceofthecontrastoccurredlaterindevelopmentthaninthecaseofvowels,asistypicallyreportedforconsonantperception.Spanish‐Catalaninfantsof4‐and16‐monthsdiscriminatedthecontrast,butfailedat12‐months‐of‐age,theageatwhichmonolingualinfantshavesettledontheirnativeconsonantcategories.

Thistemporarydeclineandre‐emergenceisnotseenacrossallcontrasts,however.Therearetwopublishedreportsintheliteraturethatindicatethatbilingualinfantsestablishnativeconsonantcategoriesineachoftheirlanguagesatthesameageasdomonolingualinfants.Onestudycomparedmonolingual‐learninginfantstobilingualFrench‐EnglishinfantsontheirabilitytodiscriminatedifferencesinboththeEnglishandFrench/b/‐/p/distinction.ThiscontrastisofparticularinterestbecausealthoughEnglishandFrencheachhaveadistinctioninvolvingthesetwophones,theboundaryisquitedifferentinthetwolanguages1.By12‐months,monolingualinfantsdiscriminateonlytheboundaryusedintheirnativelanguage(Burnsetal.2007).Thereareseveralwaysthatbilingualinfantsmightshowadifferentpatternofdevelopment.First,bilingualinfantscouldhaveapreferenceforoneboundaryovertheother.Second,theycouldexperienceaperiodoftemporarilybroadeningthecategoryasseenintheCatalan‐Spanishbilingualstudies,inwhichcasetheyshouldfailtodiscriminateeithertheFrenchortheEnglishdistinction.However,bilingualinfantsactuallyshowedathirduniquepattern.At10‐12months‐of‐age,bilingualFrench‐Englishinfantsdiscriminatedbothboundaries(Burnsetal.2007).Thus,fortheseconsonants,bilingualinfantswereultimatelyabletomakethedistinctionsthatweremeaningfulineachoftheirlanguages.

Butwhathappensifthehighlysimilarconsonantsarefromtwodifferentlanguagesthatthebilingualchildislearning,ratherthanfromwithinasinglelanguage?TheanswertothisquestioncomesfromrecentworkbySundaraetal.(2008).TheycomparedmonolingualFrench‐learningandmonolingualEnglish‐learninginfantstoFrench‐Englishbilingualinfantsontheirabilitytodiscriminatethephoneticdifferencebetweenthe[d]usedinEnglish(analveolar/d/)fromthe[d]usedinFrench(adental/d/).Todiscriminatethisdistinction,infantshadtocompareaconsonantinonelanguagetoitsrealizationintheotherlanguage.By10‐months‐of‐agetheFrenchmonolingual‐learninginfants,whohaveonlyone/d/intheirinput,hadstoppeddiscriminatingthisdistinction.However,thebilingualinfantscontinuedtodiscriminateit.Perhapsthebestexplanationforthesefindingsisthatbilingualinfantsnotonlytrackstatisticsseparatelyforeachlanguage,theyalsosetupacoustic‐phoneticspaceinalanguage‐specificfashion.WhywouldthebilingualSpanish‐CatalaninfantsshowatemporaryinabilitytodiscriminateadistinctionusedinoneoftheirlanguageswhiletheFrench‐Englishinfantsdidnot?

Oneexplanationimplicatesthespecifictypesofphoneticcontraststhatweretestedineachpopulation.StudiestodatehavetestedSpanish‐Catalanbilingualsonvowelsandfricatives,andFrench‐Englishbilingualsonstopconsonants.Futurestudiesthattestthesametypeofcontrastintwodifferentpopulationsareneededtopullapartthethus‐farconfoundedeffectsofthespecificlanguagesbeinglearned,andthedevelopmentalpatternassociatedwiththeperceptionofagivencontrast.

AdifferenttypeofexplanationnowfavoredbySebastián‐Gallésisthatbilingualinfantsareabletodiscriminatenativecontraststhroughoutthefirstyearoflife,butatcertainagessomeexperimentalparadigmsmightbeinappropriateforevidencingtheirdiscriminationabilities(Sebastián‐Gallés2008).

1InFrenchthedistinctionisbetweenaprevoicedandavoicedunaspiratedconsonantwhereasinEnglishitis

betweenavoicedunaspiratedversusavoicelessaspiratedconsonant.


8

Mostparadigmsfortestingdiscriminationininfantsrelyonhabituation‐switchdesigns,whereinfantsareexpectedtopayincreasedattentiontoachangeinstimulus.However,bilingualinfantsmaybemoreflexibleinhowtheyinterpretphoneticdifference.Althoughtheymaydetectachange,itmaynotbe“surprising”or“unexpected”,asbilingualstypicallyexperienceamorevariedphoneticenvironmentthanmonolinguals.Thiswouldbeparticularlytrueiftheyarehearingaccentedinputinoneoftheirlanguages.Thispositionhasreceivedsupportfromarecentlypublishedstudythatusedanticipatorylookingmethods,whichshowedsuccessfuldiscriminationofaphoneticcontrastbybilingualSpanish‐Catalaninfantsatanagewherehabituationmethodshaveshownfailure(Sebastián‐Gallés,Boschinpress).Suchapossibilityimpliesthatresearchersshouldtakeextracautionininterpretingtheresultsofstudiesthatshowdifferencesbetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals,assuchdifferencescouldbeartifactsofaninappropriatemethodologyforthepopulationinquestionratherthantruedifferencesincompetencies.

Theavailableevidencereviewedaboveindicatesthataroundtheendofthefirstyearoflifebilingualinfantsdiscriminatemanyphoneticdistinctionsineachoftheirnativelanguages,anddosoaswellasdomonolingualinfants.However,studiesofphoneticperceptionwithbilingualadultssuggestthatthefinaldevelopmentalpictureoftheseabilitiesmaybesomewhatmorecomplex.Somestudiesindicatethatbilingualadultshaverobustrepresentationsoftheirphoneticcategories,andshowdiscriminationofthephoneticboundariesineachoftheirlanguagesparticularlyifbothlanguageswereacquiredsimultaneouslyfrombirth(Pallieretal.2001;2007;Sundara&Polka2008).However,ifthelanguagesarenotequallydominant,bilingualadultsmayshowdifferentpatternsofdiscriminationintheirdominantascomparedtotheirnon‐dominantlanguage(Sundara&Polka2008,Sebastián‐Gallésetal.2005).Somestudiesevensuggestthatbilingualadultsmighthavephoneticcategorycharacteristicsthatareeitherintermediatetothoseoftheirtwolanguages,orthatexaggeratethedifferencesbetweenthetwo(Flegeetal.2003;Fowleretal.2008).Itshouldbenotedthatmostofthestudieswithadultbilingualsdifferfromthosewithinfantsinthattheadultsaretypicallysequentialbilinguals,thatis,theylearnedasinglenativelanguage,andthenlearnedasecondlanguagelaterinlife.Problemswithphoneticdiscriminationseemtoapplymostoftentothesecondlanguage(Boschetal.2000).Nevertheless,thepossibilityexiststhatalthoughbilingualinfantshavephoneticsystemsthatarequiteseparateinperceptionattheendofthefirstyearoflife,phoneticcategoriesmayshiftoncealexiconbeginstobeestablished.

PhonotacticDevelopment

Inadditiontodifferingintheirphonemicinventories,languagesdifferinhowsoundsmay

combinetoformaword.Phonotacticsreferstotheallowablephonemesequencesinalanguage.InEnglish,consonantclustersareallowed,buttherearestrictlimitationsonwhichconsonantscancomebeforeothers(e.g.“spl”canoccur,whereas“slp”cannot),andinwhichpositioninaword.Forexample,“tr”isallowedatthebeginningofwordsbutnotattheend,whereas“rt”isallowedonlyinword‐finalposition.Assuch,phonotacticrulesprovideinfantswithstrongcuestowordcandidatesandwordboundaries,andthusserveasanintermediatestepbetweenphoneticdevelopmentandwordrecognition.Languagesdifferintheirphonotacticswithsomelanguages,suchasJapanese,favoringwordsthatalternatebetweensingleconsonantsandsinglevowels,andotherssuchasCzech,whichallowlongsequencesofconsonants.Considerableresearchindicatesthatby9‐months‐of‐age,monolingualinfantsaresensitivetothenative‐languagephonotactics,andshowapreferenceforlisteningtolistsofwordsthatcontainhighfrequencylegalsequencesoverlistsofwordsthatcontainlowfrequency,orillegalphonemesequences(Friederici&Wessels1993;Jusczyketal.1993).Learningthephonotacticsoftwolanguagessimultaneouslyrequiresnotjustnotingdifferences,butalsocalculatingprobabilitiesofco‐occurrenceineachlanguage.


9

Toexaminewhetherinfantsgrowingupbilingualcanlearnthephonotacticregularitiesoftheirnativelanguagesasearlyasdomonolingualinfants,Sebastián‐Gallés&Bosch(2002)tested10‐montholdSpanishmonolingual,Catalanmonolingual,andSpanish‐Catalanbilingualinfantsontheirpreferenceforlegalvs.illegalCatalansequences.Thebilingualinfantswerefurtherdividedintotwogroups:thosewhoweredominantinSpanishandthosewhoweredominantinCatalan,asmeasuredbymaternallanguageandtheamountthateachlanguagewasspokeninthehome.At10‐months‐of‐age,themonolingualCatalaninfantsshowedarobustpreferenceforlegaloverillegalCatalanwords,whereasthemonolingualSpanishinfantsshowednopreferenceforeithertypeofCatalanwords.Theresultsfromthebilingualinfantsweremorecomplex.TheCatalan‐dominantbilingualsperformedliketheCatalanmonolinguals,andshowedanequallyrobustpreferenceforlegaloverillegalCatalanwords.TheSpanish‐dominantbilingualsdidnotshowasignificantpreferenceforlegalCatalanwords,buttheirperformancefellbetweenthatofSpanishmonolingualsandtheCatalangroups(monolingualsandCatalandominantbilinguals)suggestingsomesensitivitytoCatalanphonotactics.Thusbothtimingofexposureandamountofexposureseemtocontributetothelearningofphonotactics.WordRecognition

Therefinementofphoneticcategoriesandestablishmentofphonotacticsensitivitieshelp

infantsrecognizefamiliarwordsincontinuousspeech.Fromasyoungas7months,monolingualEnglish‐learninginfantsshowapreference,bylisteninglongertopassagesthatcontainfamiliarwordsoverpassagesthatdonotcontainthem(Jusczyk&Aslin1995;Jusczyk1997).Moreovertheyarenotfoiledbysimilarsoundingmispronunciations(e.g.“tup”insteadof“cup”),suggestingthattheyhavenotonlyencodedthewords’consonantonsetswithfullphoneticdetail,butthattheyareabletousethatdetailtodistinguishonerecently‐familiarizedwordformfromanother(Jusczyk&Aslin1995).Whentestedontheirrecognitionofwordstheyhavelikelyheardineverydayspeech,ratherthanbeingspecificallytaughtthewordsinthelab,French‐learningmonolingualinfantssucceedagain,butatalaterage(11months).Whengivenachoicetolistentolistsoffrequent(e.g.“bonjour”,“voiture”,“lapin”),andhencelikelyfamiliarwords,versuslistsofphonotactically‐similarinfrequentwords,theseinfantslistenedlongertofrequentwords.Atthisage,however,infantswillalsochoosetolistenlongertoalistofwordsthatareminimalpairdeviants(e.g.“vonjour”,“boiture”,“napin”)overalistofinfrequentwords((Halle,Boysson‐Bardies1996);seealsoVihmanetal.2004forasimilarstudythatexploredinteractionswithprosody).Theseresultssuggestthatalthoughinfantsmaybeabletoencodephoneticdetailwhenlisteningtowords,aperiodofdevelopmentisrequiredbeforethephoneticdetailassumesprivilegedstatusinrecognition.

Onlyafewstudieshavebeenpublishedtodateonwordformrecognitioninbilingualinfants.Previousresearchhasshownthatbyaround13‐months‐of‐age,theeventrelatedpotentials(ERPs)recordedfromelectrodesontheheadaredifferentinfamiliarascomparedtounfamiliarwordsinbothlatencyandtopography(Millsetal.1993;1997).Toexplorewhetherwordsareequallystronglyrepresentedinthebilingualbrain,Vihmanandcolleagues(2007)comparedERPsofEnglishmonolingualandWelshmonolingualinfantstoEnglish‐Welshbilingualinfants.ThemonolingualEnglishinfantsshowedtheanticipatedeffect:adifferenceinbrainresponsetofamiliarversusrarewords.ThemonolingualWelshinfantsdidnotshowtheeffect,whichmayreflectthefactthatWelshhasphonologicalmutation(i.e.,theonsetconsonantsofsomewordschangedependingonthewordsthatprecedethem),whichcouldmakeithardertotrackwords.ThedifferencecouldalsoreflectapropertyofWelshthatmakesthesecondsyllableofwordsmostsalient,whileinEnglishthefirstsyllableistypicallymostsalient.Interestingly,thebilingualsshowedapatternthatwouldnothavebeenpredictedbasedonthemonolingualresults:bilinguals’brainresponsestoEnglishwordlistsmimickedthoseofEnglishmonolinguals’,andtheirresponsestoWelshlistsshowedasimilar,althoughtemporallylater


10

differenceinresponsetofamiliarversusrarewords.Thus,thebilingualsappeartohavetransferredtheirabilitytoencodeandrecognizeEnglishwordformstoWelsh.Althoughtherearemanyfactors(e.g.,sociolinguistic)thatcouldhavecontributedtothispatternofresults,thesestudiessuggestthatthebilingualbrainrecognizesfamiliarwordsatthesameearlyageasdoesthemonolingualbrain.Thisstudyalsodemonstratestheimportanceofconsideringlanguage‐specificfactorswhenstudyingbilingualpopulations,evenininfancy.Characteristicsofthetwolanguagesthemselves,ratherthanbilingualismperse,mayexplaincertaindevelopmentalpatterns.Wewillreturntothispointinthediscussionofminimal‐pairwordlearning.WordLearning

Trulyknowingawordrunsmuchdeeperthansimplyrecognizingitsform.Theeverydaynotion

of“word”invokesalinguisticsymbolthatstandsforsomethingelse,forexampleanobject,anidea,orarelationintheworld.Yet,therearemanyantecedentdevelopmentalachievementsbeforechildrencanfullyunderstandandusewords.Inthispaperwereviewthestepsrequiredinwordcomprehension,withafocusonthelearningofcountnouns–wordsthatstandforobjects(seeWaxman&Lidz2006;Hall&Waxman2004).Webeginwithsimpleword‐objectassociation,considernexttheroleoflanguage‐specificphoneticcategoriesinguidingwordlearning,andendwithabriefexplorationofconceptualfoundationsthatmightunderliewordlearning. Associatingwordandobject

Aprerequisiteforreferentialwordknowledgeistheabilitytoassociateawordwithaconcept.Amongtheearliestwordsacquiredbyyounginfantsarewordsforcommonobjects.Althoughinfantsbegintorecognizefrequentwordforms(Jusczyk&Hohne1997)andeventolearntheassociativemeaningofsomehighlycommonwordsby6‐8months‐of‐age(Tincoff&Jusczyk1998;1999),theprocessoflearningwordsisfairlyslowuntilaroundthemiddleofthesecondyearoflife(Oviatt1980,Nazzi&Bertoncini2003).Beforethistime,infantsaremostlikelytobesuccessfulatlearningtocomprehendnewwordswhenthereisrichcontextualsupportforthemapping(Hollichetal.2000),includingwhenthereispointingand/orsharedeyegazetowardsthetarget(Baldwin1993),whenthetargetobjecthashighperceptualsalience(Prudenetal.2006),andwhenthereissynchronybetweentouchingormovingtheobjectandtheproductionoftheword(Gogate&Bahrick1998;Gogateetal.2000).By13‐15months,infantsbecomemoreadeptatlinkingthesoundofawordwithitsreferentevenwithoutbroadcontextualsupport(Woodwardetal.1994;Schafer&Plunkett1998).

Inourwork,weexaminedtheageatwhichinfantscanlearntoassociatetwodifferentwordswithtwodifferentobjectsinalaboratorytask.Inaprocedurecalledthe“Switch”task(fromCohen1992),wepresentedinfantswithamovingobject(ObjectA)onascreenpairedwithasingleword(WordA)onsometrials,andadifferentmovingobject(ObjectB)pairedwithadifferentword(WordB)onothertrials.Followinghabituationtosuchword‐objectpairings,wepresentedinfantswithbothaSwitchtrial(e.g.ObjectApairedwithWordB)oraSametrial(e.g.ObjectAwithWordA).Ifinfantslearnedaboutbothwords,bothobjects,andtheassociativelinkbetweenthem,theyshouldbesurprisedtoseeaviolationoftheassociativelinkasintheSwitchtrial.Wetestedinfantsof8,10,12,and14months‐of‐age.Wefoundthatat14months,butnotbefore,infantscouldlearntheassociativeword‐objectpairing,asevidencedbylongerlookingtotheSwitchthantotheSametrial(Werkeretal.1998).

Inarecentfollow‐upstudy,weaskedwhethertheabilitytolearnassociativewordpairingsisevidentatthesameageinbilingualasinmonolingual‐learninginfants.Thefactthatbilingualandmonolingualinfantshaveasimilar‐sizedoverallvocabularymightsuggestthatthisskillwouldemergeat


11

thesameageinbothgroups.Ontheotherhand,thereissomeworksuggestingthatincertainsituations,bilingualsmayhaveanadvantageovermonolingualinfantsinlearningassociativerules.Onestudytrained7‐month‐oldinfantstoorienttooneside(e.g.totheright)inresponsetoanauditorystimulusinordertoseeavisualreward.Afteranumberoftrials,theprocedureswitchedsothatavisualrewardappearedontheotherside(e.g.totheleft).Althoughmonolingualsandbilingualswereequallyabletolearnthefirstcontingency,bilingualinfantswerebetterabletoswitchsideswhenthecontingencychanged,successfullyinhibitingthepreviously‐taughtrule(Kovács&Mehler2009).

Totestwhetherbilingualinfantsareabletolearnassociativeword‐objectpairingsatthesameage,orearlierthanmonolingualinfants,wecomparedmonolingualandbilingualinfantsof12and14monthsontheirabilitytolearnthedissimilarwords,“lif”and“neem”intheSwitchword‐learningtask(Byers‐Heinleinetal.2008).Theresultswereclear:therewasneitheranadvantagenoradisadvantageforthebilingualinfants.ReplicatingtheoriginalWerker,etal.(1998)studies,infantsfrombothlanguagegroupsfailedat12monthsandsucceededat14monthsbylookinglongerattheSwitchthanattheSameword‐objectpairing.Theseresultsconfirmthatoneofthefundamentalcomponentsofwordlearning,theabilitytolearntheassociativelinkbetweenawordandobject,emergessynchronouslyinbothmonolingualandbilingualinfants.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐InsertFigure1

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

LearningSimilar‐SoundingWordsTobegintounpackhowthedifferentcomponentsofwordlearninginteract,andmore

specifically,toempiricallytestwhetherthephoneticcategoriesestablishedinthefirstyearoflifecanbeusedtodirectwordlearning,weextendedourassociativewordlearningworktotestmonolingualinfantsontheirabilitytolearnminimallydifferentwords.Webeganwiththe/b/‐/d/distinctionthatisusednotonlyinEnglish,butinvirtuallyeverylanguageoftheworld.Infantsof14‐monthsweretestedinthesameSwitchtaskasinourearlierworkondissimilar‐soundingwords.Tooursurprise,whentestedontheirabilitytolearnthesimilar‐soundingwords“bih”and“dih”,whichdifferonlyinasinglephoneticfeature,infantswerenotabletosucceedattheSwitchtaskat14months(Stager&Werker1997),althoughtheywereat17‐and20‐months‐of‐age(Werkeretal.2002).Thisisinstarkcontrasttotheirabilitytolearndissimilar‐soundingwordsinthesameprocedureat14months.

Inanattempttounderstandwhymonolingualinfantsfailtolearnminimallydifferentwordsat14‐months,weandothersconductedanumberoffollow‐upstudies.Manipulationsthatgiveinfantsmoreinformationwhileperformingthetaskcanallowthemtosucceedatthisage.Additionalinformationthathasbeenshowntoimproveperformanceincludestestinginfantsonwordstheyalreadyknow(e.g.ballvs.doll;Fennell&Werker2004),placingtheminimaldifferenceinaconsistentcontext(Thiessen2007),andplacingtheto‐be‐learnedwordsinanounphrase(Fennelletal.2007).Moreoverinfantsof14monthsevensucceedwhentheidenticalhabituationphasewasusedasintheSwitchtask,butisthenfollowedbyaside‐by‐side,2‐choicetaskinthetestphase(ratherthanthesequentialtaskusedinthetestphaseoftheclassicSwitchtask).Thisrevealsthatat14months,infantscanpickupandencodecriticalphoneticdetailinthelearningphase,butareonlyabletorevealthislearninginatestphasewithreducedperformancedemands(Yoshidaetal.2009).Collectively,thesestudiessuggestthatmonolingualinfantsareabletopickupandrepresentthephoneticdetailthatdistinguisheswordssuchas“bin”and“din”,butareunabletoapplythisinformationundercertainimpoverishedwordlearningconditions(seeFennell&Werker2004;Werker&Fennell2008formoredetails).


12

Onthebasisoftheseandotherfindings,weconcludedthat,althoughinfantsof14monthscandetectandrepresentthephoneticdetaildistinguishingonewordfromanother,thecomputationalrequirementsoflearningtwoobjects,twowords,andlinkingthemtooneanothercanpreventthesenovicewordlearnersfrombeingabletousethephoneticdetailsuccessfully.Accordingtothis“computationalresourcelimitation”(CRL)hypothesis,infantssucceedby17monthsacrosswordlearningsituations,evencontext‐poorsituationslikeusingisolatedwords,becausebythentheyhavebecomemoreaccomplishedwordlearners(Werkeretal.2002;Fennell&Werker2004;seealsoNazzi&Bertoncini2003;Naigles2002;Newman2008),makingiteasierforthemtosimultaneouslyholdontothephoneticdetailandtotheword‐objectlink.InourPRIMIRframework(ProcessingRichInformationfromMultidimensional,InteractiveRepresentations),wearguedmorespecificallythatat14‐months‐of‐age,althoughinfantsnowgivephoneticdetailmoreweightthanindexicaldetailinwordformrecognitiontasks(Halle&Boysson‐Bardies1996;Houston&Jusczyk2000;Singhetal.2004)thenovicewordlearnerdoesnotyetweighthecontrastivephoneticdifferenceanymoreheavilythanotherindexicaldetailsinawordlearningtask.Thus,bothtask‐relevantandtask‐irrelevantinformationarekeptinmindbytheinfant,contributingtothedifficultyinwordlearning(Werker&Curtin2005;Curtin&Werker2007).Weandotherssuggestthatby18‐months‐of‐ageinfantshaveestablishedasizableenoughreceptivelexiconthattheyhavelearnedthatitisthespeechsounds,nottheindexicalcues,thatservetodistinguishonewordfromanother(Beckman&Edwards2000).Thisgreaterweightingofphoneticcuesenablesmoreabstract,phoneme‐likeunitstoemerge(Werker&Curtin2005).Wearguethattheseinturnservetodecreasethecomputationalloadbyfocusingtheinfants’attentiononthecriticalcuesneededtosuccessfullyguidewordlearning,enablingsuccessintheminimalpairSwitchtask

Strongevidenceisemergingthatabstractphonologicalcategories,ratherthanphoneticdetails,guideminimalpairwordlearningby18months.Inarecentstudy,EnglishandDutchtoddlerswerecomparedontheirabilitytolearntheminimalpairwords“tam”and“taam”thatdifferinonlyavowellengthdistinction(Dietrichetal.2007).Thiscontrastisofinterestbecausevowellengthisphonemic(usedtocontrastmeaningbetweentwowords)inDutchbutnotinEnglish.Nonetheless,becausethedifferencebetweenalongandashortvowelisbothfamiliarandacousticallysalient,English‐learninginfantsareabletodiscriminatethiscontrastat18months(Mugitanietal.2009).UsinganidenticalprocedureasintheotherSwitchtasksdescribedabove,Dietrichandcolleaguesfoundthatat18monthsonlyDutch‐,butnotEnglish‐learningtoddlerscouldlearntoassociatetheshortvowelword“tam”withoneobjectandthelongvowelword“taam”withanother(Dietrichetal.2007).Thus,eventhoughbothgroupscanhearthedifferencebetweenalongandashortvowel,onlyDutchinfants,forwhomthedifferenceisphonemic,usethisdifferencetoguidewordlearning.

Inmonolinguals,theminimal‐pairvariantoftheSwitchtaskhasproventobeextremelyrevealingastohowinfantscoordinatetheirgrowingphonologicalknowledgewiththeirdevelopingwordlearningabilities.Indeed,performanceintheminimalpairSwitchtaskat17‐18monthsiscorrelatedwithbothconcurrent(Kempetal.inrevision)andlater(Bernhardtetal.2007)measuresofvocabularysizeandlanguagedevelopmentmoregenerally.Weturnnowtostudiesofminimal‐pairwordlearninginbilingualstoexaminewhatthisresearchhasrevealedaboutthemicrostructureofbilingualacquisition.

Dobilingualinfantsintegratetheirphoneticabilities,theirnascentknowledgeofphonology,andtheirearlywordlearninginthesamemannerasmonolingualinfants,whosucceedatlearningminimalpairwordsintheSwitchtaskat17months?Again,threepredictionscouldbemade.Ontheonehand,bilingualsfacethetaskofcoordinatingtwophonologicalsystemswiththetaskofwordlearning,increasingthecomputationalloadandsuggestingapossiblelaterageofsuccess.Inaddition,eventhoughtheoverallvocabularyislikelyaslargeorlargerinabilingualthanamonolingualchild,thefactthatthevocabularyissplitbetweentwolanguagessuggeststhattheremightbefewerwell‐solidifiedphonemestoguideinformationpick‐up.Moreover,theprecisephoneticcharacterizationofeventhe


13

/b/and/d/phonemescouldbedifferentbetweenEnglishandotherlanguages,hencefurthercomplicatingtheword‐learningchallengeforbilinguals.Butontheotherhand,thereissomeevidencethatbilingualpreschoolershaveaspecificadvantageinphonologicalawareness(Campbell&Sais1995),leadingtothepredictionthatbilingualsmightbeabletousephoneticdetailtoguidewordlearningatayoungeragethanmonolingualinfantsareableto.Finally,itispossiblethatjustastheypasssimpleassociativewordlearningtasksatthesameageasmonolingualinfants,bilingualinfantsmightalsomatchmonolingualinfantsintheageatwhichtheyareabletousephonologicaldifferencestoguidewordlearning.

Todisentanglethesehypotheses,wetestedthreegroupsofbilingual‐learninginfants(seeFennelletal.2007formoredetails).Inthefirststudy,heterogeneousbilingualinfants(Englishplussomeotherlanguage)weretestedat14‐,17‐,and20‐months‐of‐age.Asbefore,theinfantsweretestedontheirabilitytoassociatetheminimallydifferentwords“bih”and“dih”withtwodifferentobjects.Likethemonolinguals,thebilingualsfailedat14‐months‐of‐agetolearnsimilarsoundingwords,rulingoutthepossibilityofabilingualadvantage.Unlikethemonolingualinfants,however,thebilingualinfantsalsofailedat17‐months‐of‐age.Itwasonlythe20‐monthgroupthatsucceededinthisminimalpairword‐learningtask.Tocontrolforthepossibilitythatbilingualinfants,forsomereason,havedifficultydiscriminatingsimilarsoundingconsonantsevenoutsideofaword‐learningtask,wetested14‐month‐oldbilingualsinasimplephoneticdiscriminationtask(Fennell2005).Thebilingualinfantssucceededindiscriminating“bih”from“dih”,indicatingthatsimplephoneticdiscriminationwasnottheproblem.Thus,theresultsfromthefirstgroupofbilingualinfantsindicatedalaterageofsuccessatminimal‐pairwordlearning. Inournextsetofstudies,wetestedthepossibilitythatthelatersuccessofthebilingualinfantswasnotindicativeofallbilingualinfants,butmightbedrivenbyasubgroupofinfants,forwhomthephonologicalcharacteristicsofthetheirtwolanguagesrenderedthe/b/‐/d/distinctionparticularlyproblematicinawordlearningtask.Thus,weaddedtwohomogeneousgroupsofbilingualinfantsat17‐and20‐months:aChinese(MandarinorCantonese)‐EnglishsampleandaFrench(QuebecoisorEuropean)‐Englishsample.TheselanguagespossessinterestingsimilaritiesanddifferenceswhencomparedtoEnglish(thecommonlanguageacrosstheinfants).ChinesehassimilarvoicingandplaceofarticulationtoEnglishforbothoftherelevantconsonants(/b/‐/d/).Thus,theChinese‐Englishbilingualsmayfindthetaskeasierduetothecommonalitiesacrosstheirlanguages.FrenchandEnglishhavedifferentvoicingforboth/b/and/d/andadifferentplaceofarticulationfor/d/.ThesedifferencesmaymakethetargetphonemeshardertoconsolidatefortheFrench‐Englishbilinguals,leadingtobehavioraldifferencesinthetask.Despitethevaryinglevelofcross‐linguisticphoneticdifferencesacrossthegroups,thetwohomogenousgroupsofbilingualsperformedlikeoneanother,andmoresimilarlytotheheterogeneousbilingualsthantothemonolinguals.Againthebilingualswerenotsuccessfulat17‐months.Moreover,inthesetwohomogeneoussamples,onlythefemalessucceededat20‐months.Perhapsthereductioninthebetween‐languagevarianceduetoincludinghomogeneousgroupsofbilingualsallowedforasubtlerpictureofbilingualsuccessandfailure.Thetaskcouldbeevenmoredifficultthanouroriginalsamplerevealed,andonlythegirls,whoaresometimesmoreadvancedinlanguagedevelopmentandwordlearning,wereabletosucceed.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

InsertFigure2‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐However,notallstudiesofminimal‐pairwordlearninginbilingualinfantshaveyieldedfindings

identicaltoours.Indeed,inonerecentstudy,bilingualinfantsappeartohaveanadvantage,atleastundersometestingconditions.Inthiswork,Mattocketal.(inpress)testedthreegroupsof17‐month‐oldinfantsinaminimal‐pairwordlearningstudyusingtheSwitchtask:French‐Englishbilingualinfants,


14

monolingualFrenchinfants,andmonolingualEnglishinfants.Ratherthanusingthe/b/‐/d/distinctionasusedinFennelletal,2007,Mattocketal.testedtheinfantsacrossmultipleexperimentsonwordsbeginningwith/b/versus/g/(“bowce”vs.“gowce”).BothFrenchandEnglishhaveacontrastbetween/b/and/g/,buteachphonemeisrealizedslightlydifferentlyineachlanguage.Theresearchersrecordedtwosetsoftokensfromasinglehighlyproficientbilingualspeaker.TokenswerepronouncedineitheranEnglishorinaFrenchmanner,whichwasaccomplishedbyhavingthespeakerembedthetokenineitheranEnglishorinaFrenchcarrierphrase.

Inthefirstexperiment,bilingualFrench‐English,monolingualEnglish,andmonolingualFrenchinfantswerehabituatedtotheword‐objectpairingswiththewordsproducedbothintheEnglishmannerandintheFrenchmanner.Inthisstudy,onlythebilingualinfantssucceeded,whilebothgroupsofmonolingualinfantsfailed.Inthesecondexperiment,monolingualFrenchinfantsweretaughtthewordsproducedonlyintheFrenchmannerandEnglishinfantsweretaughtthewordsproducedonlyintheEnglishmanner.Withthesemorenative‐likeproductions,bothgroupsofmonolingualinfantssucceeded.Inafinalstudy,FrenchmonolingualinfantsweretestedwiththeEnglish‐producedwords,andinthiscasetheFrenchinfantsfailed.Mattockandcolleaguesinterprettheseresultsassuggestingthatitisnotthecasethatbilingualinfantsaregenerallylaterrelativetomonolingualinfantsintheirabilitytousephoneticdetailtoguidewordlearning(aswearguedinFennelletal.2007)–ratheritisthatallinfantsofthisageperformbestinaminimalpairwordlearningtaskifthewordsareproducedinawaythatmatchestheinputtheyhaveexperiencedintheireverydaylanguagelearningworld.ReferringtothepredictionsfromtheCRLhypothesis,theysuggestthatinallcases,infantsof17‐18monthshavedifficultyusingphonologicalcategoriestoguidewordlearning.Exposuretostimuliinthelaboratorythatmatchthecharacteristicsoflanguageexperiencedintheeverydayworldcanlightentheprocessingload,andfacilitateminimalpairwordlearning,whereasexposuretostimulithatdonotmatchincreasestheload,andinterfereswithsuccessfulperformance.

OneresultthatcomplicatesthisinterpretationisthatFennelletal.(2007)foundnorelationshipbetween17‐month‐oldbilinguals’exposuretoEnglishintheireverydayenvironment(asmeasuredbyparentalreport)andtheirabilitytousephoneticdetailtoguidewordlearningintheminimalpairswitchtask.AsthestimuliinFennelletal.(2007)wereproducedbyanEnglishspeaker,thenbasedonMattocketal.’sinterpretation,onewouldpredictthatbilingualinfantswithgreaterexposuretoEnglishandthusgreaterEnglishdominancewouldbemorelikelytosucceedonthetaskthanthoseinfantswhowerenotEnglish‐dominant.However,nosuchrelationshipwasfound.Takentogetherthesestudieswouldsuggestthatforbilingualinfants,andperhapsevenformonolingualinfants,althoughanabstractphonologicalcategorymightindeedbebeginningtoappearby17‐18months,itdoesnotyetworkasefficientlytoneutralizethephoneticvariationthatisirrelevanttoaword‐learningtaskasitdoesinadults.Accessingphonologicaldetailinrecognizingmeaningfulwords

Anabilitytorecognizealready‐learnedwordsisequallyimportanttolearningtheminthefirst

place.Justasinwordlearning,infantsneedtoapplyfine‐grainedphonologicalsensitivitiestothetaskofwordrecognition.Toassesswordrecognitionininfants,researchersoftenuseatwo‐choice(Golinkoffetal.1987)or“lookingwhilelistening”(Fernaldetal.1998)procedure.Inthisprocedure,infantsareshownpicturesoftwoside‐by‐sideobjects,andarethenpresentedwithawordthatlabelsoneoftheobjects.Toinvestigatehowinfantsapplyphoneticsensitivitiestowordrecognition,infantsheareitheracorrectlabeloramispronunciationofthatlabel.Forexample,thedisplaymightcontainbothadollandacar,andtheinfanthearseither“Baby.Canyoufindthebaby?”or“Vaby.Canyoufindthevaby?”Inthistaskinfantstendtolookatthedollmorethanthecarinresponsetoboth“Baby”and“Vaby”,buttheeffectofmispronunciationisseeneitherbyshorterlookingtimeand/orbyalongerlatencytoorient


15

tothelabeledobject(Swingley&Aslin2000;Swingley2007).Althoughtheeffectisstrongerforconsonantsthanforvowelsinsomereports(Swingley&Aslin2002;butseealsoMani&Plunkett2007),thesestudiesprovideconvincingevidencethatphoneticdetailisavailableintherepresentationofknownwords.

Inarecentstudy,Ramon‐Casasetal.(inpress)showedthatwordrecognitionisspecifictophoneticcontraststhathavephonemicstatusinthenativelanguage.WhentestedonmispronunciationsthatinvolveavoweldistinctionthatisusedinCatalanbutnotinSpanish(/e/‐/E/),Catalan18‐month‐oldsshowedanadvantageforthecorrectlypronouncedwordsoverthemispronunciations,whileSpanish‐learninginfantsrespondedidenticallytobothcorrectandmispronouncedversions.TheseresultssuggestCatalan‐learnersrepresentwordsinawaythatdistinguishesbetweenthe/e/and/E/vowels,whileSpanish‐learners’representationsmakenosuchdistinction.ToinvestigatewhetherbilingualchildrenrepresentwordswiththesamedegreeofspecificityasmonolingualCatalan‐learners,andhenceusethe/e/and/E/phoneticcategoriesinwordrecognition,theauthorstestedbilingualSpanish‐Catalaninfantsofthesameageasthemonolingualshadbeentested.At18months,bilingualSpanish‐CatalanchildrenperformedliketheSpanishmonolinguals,asagroupshowingasimilarresponsetothecorrectlypronouncedandmispronouncedwords,althoughtherewassomesuggestionthattheCatalan‐dominantinfantsweremoresensitivetothemispronunciationthanSpanish‐dominantinfants.Afollow‐upstudytestedagroupof3‐year‐oldbilinguals.Here,Catalandominantchildrenshowedapronouncedadvantagefortheproperlypronouncedword,whereastheSpanishdominantbilingualchildrendidnot.ThesefindingsaresimilartoreportswithadultSpanish‐Catalanbilingualswhereinmoretime,ormoreinformation(inagatingtask)isrequiredforlexicaluseofaphoneticdistinctionthatisphonemicinonlyoneofthelanguages(Pallieretal.2001).

Theseresultsareakin,insomerespects,tothosereportedbyFennelletal.(2007).Bothsetsofstudiesconvergeonthesuggestionthatbilingualinfantsmayrequirealongerperiodoflearninginordertoestablishfunctionalphonologicalrepresentationsineachoftheirlanguages.Perhaps,assuggestedbytheworkofMattockandcolleagues(inpress),therelianceonstable,phonologicalrepresentationsemergesmoreslowlyinthebilingualnotbecauseofbilingualismperse,butratherasanadaptiveresponsetogreatervariabilityintheinputspeechheard.Thisinterpretationisconsistentwiththeevidencethatevenmonolingualinfantsareeasilythrownoffintheiruseofphonologicalcategoriesifanindexicalcue(i.e.speakeridentity)ischangedbetweentrainingandtest(Hollich2006).

ConceptualDevelopmentunderlyingWordLearninginBilinguals

Conceptually,infantsneedsomeassumptionsand/orheuristicstofacilitatetheinductivewordlearningproblem(Quine1960).Candidatesthathavebeenidentifiedincludeearlyunderstandingthatcountnounsrefertowholeobjects(Markman1991),extendtomembersofaclass(Golinkoffetal.1995),andarelikelytomeansomethingdifferentfromanyothercountnounintheirvocabulary(Markman&Wachtel1988;Mervis&Bertrand1994).Somestudieshavesuggestedthat,duetothetaskoflearningwordsineachoftheirlanguages,youngbilingualsmaydifferinthedevelopmentofwordlearningheuristics(Davidsonetal.1997;Davidson&Tell2005),althoughotherstudieshavefoundfewdifferencesbetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals(Frank&Poulin‐Dubois2002).Recentresearchinourlabhasestablishedthatthenumberoflanguagesexperiencedintheinputdoes,however,affecttheemergenceofinitialwordlearningbiases.Specifically,weexaminedtheemergenceofthedisambiguationbias(thetendencytolinkanovelnountoanovelobject)andfoundthatalthoughthisheuristicisrobustinmonolingualinfantsaged18‐months,itislesssoinbilingualinfantsandnotevidentatallininfantsgrowingupwiththreelanguages(Byers‐Heinlein&Werkerinpress).Thesefindingssuggestthateitherexperiencewithsingle‐nounsingle‐objectmappingsisnecessaryfordisambiguation


16

toemerge,aconditionspecifictomonolingualinfantsorthatthiswordlearningheuristicisinplacepriortowordlearning,andthatexperiencewithtranslationequivalents(cross‐languagesynonyms)interfereswithitsexpression.Ineithercase,thesefindingsshowaneffectofexposuretomultiplelanguagesonthefirststepsinwordlearning.

Conclusion Thebasictaskoflanguageacquisitioninmonolingualandbilingualinfantsisthesame:tobecomeaproficientcommunicatorinthelanguageorlanguagesthatsurroundthem.Todoso,learnersmustnavigateacomplexlinguisticenvironment,particularlyinthecaseofbilingualinfants.Inthispaperwereviewedsomeofthefirstachievementsinbilinguallanguageacquisition,andhowtheseearlybuildingblockscometogethertofacilitateevermorecomplexlanguagetasks.Forbilingualinfants,afundamentalfirststepisthediscriminationandseparationofthetwolanguages,sothatrepresentationsofsoundsandwordscanbebuiltforeach.Justlikemonolingualinfants,bilingualsmustthenlearnthephoneticinventoriesoftheirnativelanguages,andlearntoattendtothosedistinctionsthataremeaningful,andignorethosethatarenot.Forthebilingual,somedistinctionsmaybephonemicinonelanguageandnotintheother,andthesetypesofdistinctionsmightthereforebepulledapartlaterindevelopmentthantheyareinthemonolingual(e.g.theCatalan/e/‐/E/distinctionwhichisnotrealizedinSpanish;Bosch&Sebastián‐Gallés2003).Inothercases,adistinctionmaybemaintainedasthedifferencebetweentherealizationofaparticularphonemeinonelanguageversusitsrealizationintheother(e.g.theFrenchandEnglish/d/sounds;Sundaraetal.2008).Monolingualsandbilingualslikelyusethesamemechanismstorefinetheirperceptualsensitivities,butasaresultofthemorecomplexlearningenvironment,phoneticdevelopmentmayattimesunfoldslightlydifferentlyinthebilingualcontextasopposedtothemonolingualcontext.Further,howphoneticdevelopmentproceedsinthebilingualmightdependonthesimilaritiesanddifferencesinphoneticrepertoirebetweenthebilinguals’twolanguages.

Whenphoneticsensitivitiesareappliedtowordlearning,weagainseeaslightlydifferentunfoldingofabilitiesbetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals.Onbasicword‐learningtasks,monolingualsandbilingualsshowidenticalabilities(Byers‐Heinleinetal.2008).Yetinbothwordlearningandwordrecognitiontasksthatprobebilinguals’abilitytoapplyphoneticsensitivities,bilingualssucceedatalateragethanmonolinguals(Fennelletal.2007;Ramon‐Casasetal.inpress).Atthesametime,otherstudiesusingsimilartaskshaveshownthatbilingualscanoutperformmonolinguals(Mattocketal.inpress).Theseseeminglycontradictoryfindingsmayeventuallybeunderstoodthroughtheconsiderationofthedemandsrequiredbybilingualacquisition.Ontheonehand,bilingualsmaybelatertoformstablephonologicalrepresentations,thuspostponingtheirabilitytosucceedonsomeminimal‐pairtasks.Ontheotherhand,bilingualslikelyexperienceaworldwithconsiderablymorephoneticvariabilitythanmonolinguals.Thismightresultinbroaderphoneticcategoriesinthebilingual,hencegreatercautioninapplyingsummaryphonologicalrepresentationsmightprovetobeavaluableadaptationinthebilingualcontext.Further,bilingualsmightexperienceamorecomplexlanguageenvironment,leadingtogreaterprocessingdemandsparticularlyastheytrytodiscriminateandseparatetheirlanguages.Openquestionsremainastowhenandhowbilingualscanapplytheirabilitytodiscriminatetheirtwolanguagestothetaskofminimal‐pairwordlearning.Below,wepresentafiguresummarizingtheseresults,showingtherelativetimingofsuccessonvarioustasksinmonolingualandbilingualinfants.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐InsertFigure3

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐


17

Languagedominanceisanotherfactorwhichmustbecarefullyconsideredinthecaseofbilinguallanguageacquisition.Dominancemayinfluencehowbilingualinfantsinterpretdifferenttypesoflanguageinformationfromanearlyage,includingintasksthatassessearlyphonotacticknowledge(Sebastián‐Gallés&Bosch2002),andwordrecognition(Ramon‐Casasetal.inpress).Differencesininfantbrainresponsestowordsfromthedominantversusnon‐dominantlanguage(Conboy&Mills2006)hintattheneuraldifferenceswhichmayunderliethesedominanceeffects,supportingtheideathatthedominantlanguagemaybefundamentallydifferentandprivileged.Theseresultsstronglysuggestthattheissueoflanguagedominanceshouldalwaysbeconsidered,evenintheearlieststagesofbilingualdevelopment.Further,cautionshouldbetakenwhengaugingthedominantlanguageofabilingualatanygivenpointintime,aschanginglifecircumstances(especiallyinyoungerbilinguals)canshiftlanguagedominancethroughoutdevelopment. Onthescaleoflanguagemilestones,andintermsofthedevelopmentoffundamentallearningmechanisms,monolingualandbilingualacquisitiondifferlittle.Yet,inthispaperwehaveillustratedhowinterestingdifferencescanoccurbetweenmonolingualsandbilingualsinthemicrostructureofacquisition.Thestudyofbilingualacquisitionatbothmacrostructureandmicrostructurelevelscanyielddifferingyetcomplementaryperspectivesonlanguageacquisition.Atthemacrostructurescale,similaritiesbetweenmonolingualsandbilingualsattesttotherobustnessoftheinfants’abilitytoacquirelanguage,andtotheflexibilityofourbiologicalendowmentswhichsupportacquisition.Atthemicroscale,differencesbetweenmonolingualsandbilingualscangiveinsightintothedetailedworkingsofmechanismsofacquisition,andrevealhowthedevelopingmindadaptstoradicallydifferenttypesofearlylanguageenvironmentsandlearningchallenges.


18

References

Baker,S.A.,Golinkoff,R.M.,Petitto,L.A.2006Newinsightsintooldpuzzlesfrominfants'categoricaldiscriminationofsilentphoneticunits.Lang.Learn.2,147‐162.doi:10.1207/s15473341lld0203_1.

Baldwin,D.A.1993Infants'abilitytoconsultthespeakerforcluestowordreference.J.ChildLang.20,395‐418.

Beckman,M.E.,Edwards,J.2000Theontogenyofphonologicalcategoriesandtheprimacyoflexicallearninginlinguisticdevelopment.ChildDev.71,240‐249.

Bernhardt,B.M.,Kemp,N.,Werker,J.F.2007Earlyword‐objectassociationsandlaterlanguagedevelopment.FirstLang.27,315‐328.doi:10.1177/0142723707081652.

Bosch,L.,Costa,A.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.2000Firstandsecondlanguagevowelperceptioninearlybilinguals.Eur.J.Cognit.Psychol.12,189‐221.doi:10.1080/095414400382127.

Bosch,L.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.1997Native‐languagerecognitionabilitiesin4‐month‐oldinfantsfrommonolingualandbilingualenvironments.Cognition.65,33‐69.

Bosch,L.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.2001Earlylanguagedifferentiationinbilingualinfants.InTrendsinbilingualacquisition.(eds.J.CenozandF.Genesee).pp.71‐93.Amsterdam,Netherlands:Benjamins.

Bosch,L.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.2003Simultaneousbilingualismandtheperceptionofalanguage‐specificvowelcontrastinthefirstyearoflife.Lang.Speech.46,217‐243.

Burns,T.C.,Yoshida,K.A.,Hill,K.,Werker,J.F.2007Thedevelopmentofphoneticrepresentationinbilingualandmonolingualinfants.Appl.Psycholinguist.28,455‐474.doi:10.1017/S0142716407070257.

Byers‐Heinlein,K.,Fennell,C.T.,Werker,J.F.2008,OctoberWordlearninginmonolingualandbilingualinfants.PosterpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonModelsofInteractioninBilinguals

Byers‐Heinlein,K.,Werker,J.F.inpressMonolingual,bilingual,trilingual:Infants’languageexperienceinfluencesthedevelopmentofawordlearningconstraint.Dev.Sci.

Byers‐Heinlein,K.,Werker,J.F.,Burns,T.F.2008,MarchLanguagepreferenceanddiscriminationinnewbornswithprenatalbilingualexposure.PosterpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInfantStudies,Vancouver,Canada.

Campbell,R.,Sais,E.1995Acceleratedmetalinguistic(phonological)awarenessinbilingualchildren.Br.J.Dev.Psychol.13,61.

Caramazza,A.,Yeni‐Komshian,G.H.1974VoiceonsettimeintwoFrenchdialects.J.Phonetics.2,239‐245.

Cohen,L.B.1992,MayThemythofdifferentiation.InvitedsymposiumpaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInfantStudies,Miami,FL.


19

Conboy,B.T.,Mills,D.L.2006Twolanguages,onedevelopingbrain:Event‐relatedpotentialstowordsinbilingualtoddlers.Dev.Sci.9,F1‐F12.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2005.00453.x.

Curtin,S.,Werker,J.F.2007Theperceptualfoundationofphonologicaldevelopment.InTheOxfordHandbookofPsycholinguistics(ed.GarethGaskell),pp.579‐599.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Davidson,D.,Jergovic,D.,Imami,Z.,Theodos,V.1997Monolingualandbilingualchildren'suseofthemutualexclusivityconstraint.J.ChildLang.24,3‐24.doi:10.1017/S0305000996002917.

Davidson,D.,Tell,D.2005Monolingualandbilingualchildren'suseofmutualexclusivityinthenamingofwholeobjects.J.Exp.ChildPsychol.92,25‐45.

DeHouwer,A.,Bornstein,M.H.,Putnick,D.2008,MarchLexicalknowledgeinbilingualinfants.PosterpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInfantStudies,Vancouver,Canada.

DeHouwer,A.1995BilingualLanguageAcquisition.InHandbookofChildLanguage(eds.P.FletcherandB.MacWhinney).pp.219‐250.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.

Dehaene‐Lambertz,G.,Houston,D.1998Fasterorientationlatenciestowardnativelanguageintwo‐month‐oldinfants.Lang.Speech.41,21‐43.

Dietrich,C.,Swingley,D.,Werker,J.F.2007Nativelanguagegovernsinterpretationofsalientspeechsounddifferencesat18months.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.104,16027‐16031.doi:10.1073/pnas.0705270104.

Fennell,C.T.2005,JulyBalancedandlanguage‐dominantbilinguals’perceptionofaconsonantcontrastininfancy.PaperpresentedattheInternationalCongressfortheStudyofChildLanguage,Berlin.

Fennell,C.T.,Byers‐Heinlein,K.,Werker,J.F.2007Usingspeechsoundstoguidewordlearning:Thecaseofbilingualinfants.ChildDev.78,1510‐1525.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2007.01080.x.

Fennell,C.T.,Waxman,S.R.,Weisleder,A.2007Withreferentialcues,infantssuccessfullyusephoneticdetailinwordlearning.InProceedingsofthe31stAnnualBostonUniversityConferenceonLanguageDevelopment.pp.206‐217.

Fennell,C.T.,Werker,J.F.2004Infantattentiontophoneticdetail:Knowledgeandfamiliarityeffects.InProceedingsofthe28thAnnualBostonUniversityConferenceonLanguageDevelopment.pp.165‐176.

Fernald,A.,Pinto,J.P.,Swingley,D.,Weinberg,A.,McRoberts,G.W.1998Rapidgainsinspeedofverbalprocessingbyinfantsinthe2ndyear.Psych.Sci.9,228‐231.

Flege,J.E.,Schirru,C.,MacKay,I.R.A.2003Interactionbetweenthenativeandsecondlanguagephoneticsubsystems.SpeechCommun.40,467.doi:10.1016/S0167‐6393(02)00128‐0.

Fowler,C.A.,Sramko,V.,Ostry,D.J.,Rowland,S.A.,Hallé,P.2008CrosslanguagephoneticinfluencesonthespeechofFrench–Englishbilinguals.J.Phonetics.36,649‐663.doi:DOI:10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.001.


20

Frank,I.,Poulin‐Dubois,D.2002Youngmonolingualandbilingualchildren'sresponsestoviolationoftheMutualExclusivityPrinciple.Int.J.Biling.6,125‐146.

Friederici,A.D.,Wessels,J.M.1993Phonotacticknowledgeofwordboundariesanditsuseininfantspeechperception.Percept.Psychophys.54,287‐295.

Genesee,F.,Boivin,I.,Nicoladis,E.1996Talkingwithstrangers:Astudyofbilingualchildren'scommunicativecompetence.Appl.Psycholinguist.17,427‐442.

Genesee,F.,Nicoladis,E.,Paradis,J.1995Languagedifferentiationinearlybilingualdevelopment.J.ChildLang.22,611‐631.

Gogate,L.J.,Bahrick,L.E.1998Intersensoryredundancyfacilitateslearningofarbitraryrelationsbetweenvowelsoundsandobjectsinseven‐month‐oldinfants.J.Exp.ChildPsychol.69,133‐149.doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2438.

Gogate,L.J.,Bahrick,L.E.,Watson,J.D.2000Astudyofmultimodalmotherese:Theroleoftemporalsynchronybetweenverballabelsandgestures.ChildDev.71,878‐894.doi:10.1111/1467‐8624.00197.

Golinkoff,R.M.,Hirsh‐Pasek,K.,Cauley,K.M.,Gordon,L.1987Theeyeshaveit:Lexicalandsyntacticcomprehensioninanewparadigm.J.ChildLang.14,23‐45.

Golinkoff,R.M.,Shuff‐Bailey,M.,Olguin,R.,Ruan,W.1995Youngchildrenextendnovelwordsatthebasiclevel:Evidencefortheprincipleofcategoricalscope.Dev.Psychol.31,494‐507.doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.31.3.494.

Hall,D.G.&Waxman,S.R.2004Weavingalexicon,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Halle,P.A.,Boysson‐Bardies,B.D.1996Theformatofrepresentationofrecognizedwordsininfants'earlyreceptivelexicon.InfantBehav.Dev.19,463‐481.doi:10.1016/S0163‐6383(96)90007‐7.

Hollich,G.2006CombiningTechniquestoRevealEmergentEffectsinInfants'Segmentation,WordLearning,andGrammar.Lang.Speech.49,3‐19.

Hollich,G.,Hirsh‐Pasek,K.,Golinkoff,R.M.,Brand,R.J.,Brown,E.,Chung,H.L.,Hennon,E.,Rocroi,C.2000Breakingthelanguagebarrier:Anemergentistcoalitionmodelfortheoriginsofwordlearning.Monogr.Soc.Res.ChildDev.65,1‐123.

Houston,D.M.,Jusczyk,P.W.2000Theroleoftalker‐specificinformationinwordsegmentationbyinfants.J.Exp.Psychol.Hum.Percept.Perform.26,1570‐1582.doi:10.1037/0096‐1523.26.5.1570.

Jusczyk,P.W.1997Findingandrememberingwords:SomebeginningsbyEnglish‐learninginfants.Curr.Dir.Psychol.Sci.6,170‐174.

Jusczyk,P.W.,Aslin,R.N.1995Infants'detectionofthesoundpatternsofwordsinfluentspeech.Cognit.Psychol.29,1‐23.doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1010.


21

Jusczyk,P.W.,Friederici,A.D.,Wessels,J.M.,Svenkerud,V.Y.,Jusczyk,A.M.1993Infants'sensitivitytothesoundpatternsofnativelanguagewords.J.Mem.Lang.32,402‐420.doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1022.

Jusczyk,P.W.,Hohne,E.A.1997Infants'memoryforspokenwords.Science.277,1984‐1986.doi:10.1126/science.277.5334.1984.

Kemp,N.,Scott,J.,Bernhardt,B.M.,Johnson,C.E.,Siegel,L.,Werker,J.F.underrevisionDevelopmentalFoundations:Infants’EmerginguseofPhonologicalCategoriesinWordLearning.

Kovács,Á.M.,Mehler,J.2009Cognitivegainsin7‐month‐oldbilingualinfants.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.106,6556‐6560.doi:10.1073/pnas.0811323106.

Kuhl,P.K.,Stevens,E.,Hayashi,A.,Deguchi,T.,Kiritani,S.,Iverson,P.2006Infantsshowafacilitationeffectfornativelanguagephoneticperceptionbetween6and12months.Dev.Sci.9,F13‐f21.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2006.00468.x.

Mani,N.,Plunkett,K.2007Phonologicalspecificityofvowelsandconsonantsinearlylexicalrepresentations.J.Mem.Lang.57,252‐272.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.005.

Markman,E.M.1991Thewhole‐object,taxonomic,andmutualexclusivityassumptionsasinitialconstraintsonwordmeanings.InPerspectivesonlanguageandthought:Interrelationsindevelopment(edsS.Gelman,J.P.Byrnes).pp.72‐106.NewYork:CambridgeUP

Markman,E.M.,Wachtel,G.F.1988Children'suseofmutualexclusivitytoconstrainthemeaningsofwords.Cognit.Psychol.20,121‐157.doi:10.1016/0010‐0285(88)90017‐5.

Mattock,K.,Burnham,D.2006ChineseandEnglishInfants'TonePerception:EvidenceforPerceptualReorganization.Infancy.10,241‐265.doi:10.1207/s15327078in1003_3.

Mattock,K.,Polka,L.,Rvachew,S.,Krehm,M.inpressThefirststepsinwordlearningareeasierwhentheshoesfit:Comparingmonolingualandbilingualinfants.Dev.Sci.

Mehler,J.,Jusczyk,P.W.,Lambertz,G.,Halsted,N.,Bertoncini,J.,Amiel‐Tison,C.1988Aprecursoroflanguageacquisitioninyounginfants.Cognition.29,143‐178.doi:10.1016/0010‐0277(88)90035‐2.

Mervis,C.B.,Bertrand,J.1994AcquisitionoftheNovelName‐NamelessCategory(N3C)principle.ChildDev.65,1646‐1662.doi:10.2307/1131285.

Mills,D.L.,Coffey‐Corina,S.A.,Neville,H.J.1993Languageacquisitionandcerebralspecializationin20‐month‐oldinfants.J.Cogn.Neurosci.5,317‐334.

Mills,D.L.,Coffey‐Corina,S.A.,Neville,H.J.1997Languagecomprehensionandcerebralspecializationfrom13to20months.Dev.Neuropsychol.13,397‐445.

Moon,C.,Cooper,R.P.,Fifer,W.P.1993Two‐day‐oldsprefertheirnativelanguage.InfantBehav.Dev.16,495‐500.doi:10.1016/0163‐6383(93)80007‐U.


22

Mugitani,R.,Pons,F.,Fais,L.,Dietrich,C.,Werker,J.F.,Amano,S.2009PerceptionofvowellengthbyJapanese‐andEnglish‐learninginfants.Dev.Psychol.45,236‐247.doi:10.1037/a0014043.

Naigles,L.R.2002Formiseasy,meaningishard:resolvingaparadoxinearlychildlanguage.Cognition.86,157.doi:10.1016/S0010‐0277(02)00177‐4.

Narayan,C.,Werker,J.F.,Beddor,P.M.underreviewTheinteractionbetweenacousticsalienceandlanguageexperienceindevelopmentalspeechperception:Evidencefromnasalplacediscrimination.

Nazzi,T.,Bertoncini,J.,Mehler,J.1998Languagediscriminationbynewborns:Towardanunderstandingoftheroleofrhythm.J.Exp.Psychol.Hum.Percept.Perform.24,756‐766.doi:10.1037/0096‐1523.24.3.756.

Nazzi,T.,Jusczyk,P.W.,Johnson,E.K.2000LanguagediscriminationbyEnglish‐learning5‐month‐olds:Effectsofrhythmandfamiliarity.J.Mem.Lang.43,1‐19.doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2698.

Nazzi,T.,Ramus,F.2003Perceptionandacquisitionoflinguisticrhythmbyinfants.SpeechComm.41,233‐243.doi:10.1016/S0167‐6393(02)00106‐1.

Newman,R.S.2008TheLevelofDetailinInfants'WordLearning.Curr.Dir.Psychol.Sci.17,229‐232.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8721.2008.00580.x.

Oller,D.K.,Eilers,R.E.,Urbano,R.,Cobo‐Lewis,A.B.1997Developmentofprecursorstospeechininfantsexposedtotwolanguages.J.ChildLang.24,407‐425.

Oviatt,S.L.1980Theemergingabilitytocomprehendlanguage:Anexperimentalapproach.ChildDev.51,97‐106.doi:10.2307/1129595.

Pallier,C.,Bosch,L.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.1997Alimitonbehavioralplasticityinspeechperception.Cognition.64,B9‐B17.doi:10.1016/S0010‐0277(97)00030‐9.

Pallier,C.,Colome,A.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.2001Theinfluenceofnative‐languagephonologyonlexicalaccess:Exemplar‐basedversusabstractlexicalentries.Psych.Sci.12,445‐449.doi:10.1111/1467‐9280.00383.

Paradis,J.,Nicoladis,E.2008,OctoberAreallbilingualchildrendelayedinvocabularydevelopment?HowCanadianFrench‐Englishbilingualchildrenaredifferent.TalkpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonModelsofInteractioninBilinguals,Bangor,UK.

Pascalis,O.,deHaan,M.,Nelson,C.A.2002Isfaceprocessingspecies‐specificduringthefirstyearoflife?Science.296,1321‐1323.doi:10.1126/science.1070223.

Pearson,B.Z.,Fernandez,S.,Oller,D.K.1995Cross‐LanguageSynonymsintheLexiconsofBilingualInfants:OneLanguageorTwo?J.ChildLang.22,345‐368.

Pearson,B.Z.,Fernández,S.C.1994PatternsofInteractionintheLexicalGrowthinTwoLanguagesofBilingualInfantsandToddlers.Lang.Learn.44,617‐653.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐1770.1994.tb00633.x.


23

Petitto,L.A.,Katerelos,M.,Levy,B.G.,Gauna,K.,Tetreault,K.,Ferraro,V.2001Bilingualsignedandspokenlanguageacquisitionfrombirth:Implicationsforthemechanismsunderlyingearlybilinguallanguageacquisition.J.ChildLang.28,453‐496.doi:10.1017/S0305000901004718.

Pruden,S.M.,Hirsh‐Pasek,K.,Golinkoff,R.M.,Hennon,E.A.2006TheBirthofWords:Ten‐Month‐OldsLearnWordsThroughPerceptualSalience.ChildDev.77,266‐280.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00869.x.

Quine,W.V.1960Wordandobject,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Ramon‐Casas,M.,Swingley,D.,Sebastián‐Gallés,N.,Bosch,L.inpressVowelCategorizationduringWordRecognitioninBilingualToddlers.Cognit.Psychol.doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.02.002.

Schafer,G.,Plunkett,K.1998Rapidwordlearningbyfifteen‐month‐oldsundertightlycontrolledconditions.ChildDev.69,309‐320.doi:10.2307/1132166.

Sebastián‐Gallés,N.2008,MarchGrowingUpBilingual:FromCribtoCollege.

Sebastián‐Gallés,N.,Bosch,L.2002Buildingphonotacticknowledgeinbilinguals:Roleofearlyexposure.J.Exp.Psychol.Hum.Percept.Perform.28,974‐989.doi:10.1037/0096‐1523.28.4.974.

Sebastián‐Gallés,N.,Bosch,L.inpressDevelopmentalshiftinthediscriminationofvowelcontrastsinbilingual:Isthedistributionalaccountallthereistoit?Dev.Sci.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2009.00829.x.

Sebastián‐Gallés,N.,Bosch,L.,Pons,F.2008EarlybilingualismInEncyclopediaofinfantandearlychildhooddevelopment(eds.M.HaithandJ.Benson).pp.172‐182.SanDiego:AcademicPress.

Sebastián‐Gallés,N.,Echeverría,S.,Bosch,L.2005Theinfluenceofinitialexposureonlexicalrepresentation:Comparingearlyandsimultaneousbilinguals.J.Mem.Lang.52,240‐255.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.001.

Singh,L.,Morgan,J.L.,White,K.S.2004Preferenceandprocessing:Theroleofspeechaffectinearlyspokenwordrecognition.J.Mem.Lang.51,173‐189.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.04.004.

Stager,C.L.,Werker,J.F.1997Infantslistenformorephoneticdetailinspeechperceptionthaninword‐learningtasks.Nature.388,381‐382.doi:10.1038/41102.

Sundara,M.,Polka,L.2008Discriminationofcoronalstopsbybilingualadults:Thetimingandnatureoflanguageinteraction.Cognition.106,234‐258.doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.011.

Sundara,M.,Polka,L.,Molnar,M.2008Developmentofcoronalstopperception:Bilingualinfantskeeppacewiththeirmonolingualpeers.Cognition.108,232‐242.doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.013.

Swingley,D.2007Lexicalexposureandword‐formencodingin1.5‐year‐olds.Dev.Psychol.43,454‐464.doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.43.2.454.

Swingley,D.,Aslin,R.N.2000Spokenwordrecognitionandlexicalrepresentationinveryyoungchildren.Cognition.76,147‐166.doi:10.1016/S0010‐0277(00)00081‐0.


24

Swingley,D.,Aslin,R.N.2002Lexicalneighborhoodsandtheword‐formrepresentationsof14‐month‐olds.Psyc.Sci.13,480‐484.doi:10.1111/1467‐9280.00485.

Thiessen,E.D.2007Theeffectofdistributionalinformationonchildren’suseofphonemiccontrasts.J.Mem.Lang.56,16‐34.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.002.

Tincoff,R.,Jusczyk,P.W.1999Somebeginningsofwordcomprehensionin6‐month‐olds.Psyc.Sci.10,172‐175.doi:10.1111/1467‐9280.00127.

Tincoff,R.,Jusczyk,P.W.1998,AprilSix‐month‐oldsassociatefamiliarwordswithfamiliarobjects.PosterpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInfantStudies,Atlanta,GA.

Vihman,M.M.1985Languagedifferentiationbythebilingualinfant.J.ChildLang.12,297‐324.

Vihman,M.M.,Nakai,S.,DePaolis,R.A.,Hallé,P.2004Theroleofaccentualpatterninearlylexicalrepresentation.J.Mem.Lang.50,336‐353.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.11.004.

Vihman,M.M.,Thierry,G.,Lum,J.,Keren‐Portnoy,T.,Martin,P.2007OnsetofwordformrecognitioninEnglish,Welsh,andEnglish‐Welshbilingualinfants.Appl.Psycholinguist.28,475‐493.doi:10.1017/S0142716407070269.

Volterra,V.,Taeschner,T.1978Theacquisitionanddevelopmentoflanguagebybilingualchildren.J.ChildLang.5,311‐326.

Waxman,S.R.,Lidz,J.L.2006EarlyWordLearningInHandbookofchildpsychology:Vol2,Cognition,perception,andlanguage(6thed.).(eds.DeannaKuhn,RobertS.Siegler,WilliamDamon,etal).pp.299‐335.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.

Weikum,W.M.,Vouloumanos,A.,Navarra,J.,Soto‐Faraco,S.,Sebastián‐Gallés,,Núria,Werker,J.F.2007Visuallanguagediscriminationininfancy.Science.316,1159‐1159.doi:10.1126/science.1137686.

Werker,J.F.,Byers‐Heinlein,K.2008Bilingualismininfancy:Firststepsinperceptionandcomprehension.TrendsCogn.Sci.12,144‐151.doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.008.

Werker,J.F.,Cohen,L.B.,Lloyd,V.L.,Casasola,M.,Stager,C.L.1998Acquisitionofword‐objectassociationsby14‐month‐oldinfants.Dev.Psychol.34,1289‐1309.doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.34.6.1289.

Werker,J.F.,Curtin,S.2005PRIMIR:Adevelopmentalmodelofspeechprocessing.Lang.Learn.Dev.1,197‐234.

Werker,J.F.,Fennell,C.T.2008Infantspeechperceptionandlaterlanguageacquisition:MethodologicalunderpinningsInInfantpathwaystolanguage:Methods,models,andresearchdirections(eds.J.Colombo,P.McCardleandL.Freund).pp.85‐98.NewYork:PsychologyPress.

Werker,J.F.,Fennell,C.T.,Corcoran,K.M.,Stager,C.L.2002Infants'AbilitytoLearnPhoneticallySimilarWords:EffectsofAgeandVocabularySize.Infancy.3,1‐30.doi:10.1207/15250000252828226.


25

Werker,J.F.,Gilbert,J.H.V.,Humphrey,K.,Tees,R.C.1981Developmentalaspectsofcross‐languagespeechperception.ChildDev.52,349‐355.doi:10.2307/1129249.

Werker,J.F.,Maurer,D.,Yoshida,K.inpressCulturalinfluenceonperceptualdevelopmentininfancyInHandbookofCrossCulturalDevelopmentalScience(ed.M.H.Bornstein).NewYork:PsychologyPress.

Werker,J.F.,Tees,R.C.1984Cross‐languagespeechperception:Evidenceforperceptualreorganizationduringthefirstyearoflife.InfantBehav.Dev.7,49‐63.doi:10.1016/S0163‐6383(84)80022‐3.

Werker,J.F.,Tees,R.C.1999Influencesoninfantspeechprocessing:Towardanewsynthesis.Annu.Rev.Psychol.50,509‐535.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.509.

Woodward,A.L.,Markman,E.M.,Fitzsimmons,C.M.1994RapidWordLearningin13‐and18‐Month‐Olds.Dev.Psychol.30,553‐566.doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.30.4.553.

Yoshida,K.A.,Fennell,C.T.,Swingley,D.,Werker,J.F.2009Fourteen‐month‐oldinfantslearnsimilarsoundingwords.Dev.Sci.12,412‐418.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2008.00789.x.

bilingual beginnings to learning words - concordia · pdf filebilingual beginnings to learning...

Documents