Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-94dtm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T12:58:22.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of phonological neighborhood density on typical and atypical emerging lexicons*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

STEPHANIE F. STOKES
STEPHANIE F. STOKES*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the Extended Statistical Learning account (ExSL; Stokes, Kern & dos Santos, 2012) late talkers (LTs) continue to use neighborhood density (ND) as a cue for word learning when their peers no longer use a density learning mechanism. In the current article, LTs expressive (active) lexicon ND values differed from those of their age-matched, but not language-matched, TD peers, a finding that provided support for the ExSL account. Stokes (2010) claimed that LTs had difficulty abstracting sparse words, but not dense, from the ambient language. If true, then LTs' receptive (passive), as well as active lexicons should be comprised of words of high ND. However, in the current research only active lexicons were of high ND. LTs' expressive lexicons may be small not because of an abstraction deficit, but because they are unable to develop sufficiently strong phonological representations to support word production.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 634 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

[*]

Address for correspondence: University of Canterbury – Communication Disorders, Private Bag 4800 Christchurch, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. E-mail: stephanie.stokes@canterbury.ac.nz

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M., Holt, G., Line, E., McDonald, D., McDonald, S. & Watt, H. (2012). Parental phonological memory contributes to prediction of outcome of late talkers from 20 months to 4 years: A longitudinal study of precursors of specific language impairment. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17, 205–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Q. & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review 119, 417–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S. & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language 16, 239–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S., Simonoff, E., Bishop, D. V. M. & Plomin, R. (1998). Genetic influence on language delay in two-year-old children. Nature Neuroscience 1, 324–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Cara, B. & Goswami, U. (2002). Similarity relations among spoken words: The special status of rimes in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34, 416–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Cara, B. & Goswami, U. (n.d. ). Statistical analysis of similarity relations among spoken words: Evidence for the special status of rimes in English. Retrieved from <http://portail.unice.fr/jahia/page12414.html>..>Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P. … Reilly, J. S. (1993). MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. & Dale, R. A. (2007). Comparability of lexical corpora: Word frequency in phonological generalization. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 21, 423–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R. & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language 62(2), 113–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, A., Plunkett, K. & Schafer, G. (2000). Infant vocabulary development assessed with a British communicative development inventory. Journal of Child Language 27, 689–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, J. R., Storkel, H. L. & Hogan, T. P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language 63, 100–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houston-Price, C., Mather, E. & Sakkalou, E. (2007). Discrepancy between parental report of infants' receptive vocabulary and infants' behavior in a preferential looking task. Journal of Child Language 34, 701–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. S. & Smith, L. B. (2005). Object name learning and object perception: A deficit in late talkers. Journal of Child Language 32, 223–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurrary, B., Samelson, V. M., Lee, S. H. & Tomblin, J. B. (2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI. Cognitive Psychology 60, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, D. L., Coffey-Corina, S. & Neville, H. J. (1997). Language comprehension and cerebral specialization from 13 to 20 months. Developmental Neuropsychology 13, 397–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munroe, N., Baker, E., McGregor, K., Docking, K. & Arculi, J. (2012). Why word learning is not fast. Frontiers in Psychology 3(41), 1–10.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral Ecology 15(6), 1044–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, R. (2012). Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords. Lingua 122, 164–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood density and word frequency in toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 670–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. F., Bleses, D., Basbøll, H. & Lambertsen, C. (2012a). Statistical learning in emerging lexicons: The case of Danish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, 1265–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. F., Kern, S. & dos Santos, C. (2012b). Extended statistical learning as an account for slow vocabulary growth. Journal of Child Language 39(1), 105–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. F. & Klee, T. (2009a). Factors that influence vocabulary development in two-year-old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. F. & Klee, T. (2009b). The diagnostic accuracy of a new test of early nonword repetition for differentiating late talking and typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 872–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Thal, D. J. (2000). Late-talking toddlers: Are they are risk? San Diego: San Diego State University Press.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002a). Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 270–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002b). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 735–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Yao, Y. (2011). Effects of neighborhood density on pronunciation variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Yuen, Y. L. & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education 24, 215–38.Google Scholar
Zamuner, T. S. (2009). The structure and nature of phonological neighborhoods in children's early lexicons. Journal of Child Language 36, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed