1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947
1.
1.J. van de Weijer, “Language input for word discovery,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen 1998.
2.
2.J. Werker and R. Tees, “Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life,” Infant Behav. Dev.0163-6383 7, 4963 (1984).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3
3.
3.P. Jusczyk, J. Charles-Luce, and P. Luce, “Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language,” J. Mem. Lang.0749-596X 33, 630645 (1994).
4.
4.P. Jusczyk, A. Cutler, and N. Redanz, “Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words,” Child Dev.0009-3920 64, 675687 (1993).
5.
5.P. Jusczyk and R. Aslin, “Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech,” Cogn. Psychol.0010-0285 23, 123 (1995).
6.
6.V. Kooijman, P. Hagoort, and A. Cutler, “Electrophysiological evidence for prelinguistic infants’ word recognition in continuous speech,” Cogn. Brain Res. 24, 109116 (2005).
7.
7.J. Saffran, J. Werker, and L. Werner, “The infants’s auditory world: Hearing, speech, and the beginnings of language,” in Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th ed., edited by D. Kuhn and M. Siegler (Wiley, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2006).
8.
8.A. Cutler and D. Carter, “The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary,” Comput. Speech Lang.0885-2308 2, 133142 (1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2308(87)90004-0
9.
9.V. Valian and S. Coulson, “Anchor points in language learning: The role of marker frequency,” J. Mem. Lang.0749-596X 27, 7186 (1988).
10.
10.M. Shady, “Infants’ sensitivity to function morphemes,” Ph.D. thesis, SUNY, Buffalo, 1996.
11.
11.R. Shi, J. Werker, and A. Cutler, “Recognition and representation of function words in English-learning infants,” Infancy (in press).
12.
12.V. Shafer, J. Shucard, D. Shucard, and L. Gerken, “An electrophysiological study of infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of English speech,” J. Speech Hear. Res.0022-4685 41, 874886 (1998).
13.
13.B. Höhle and J. Weissenborn, “German-learning infants’ ability to detect unstressed closed-class elements in continuous speech,” Dev. Sci. 6, 122127 (2003).
14.
14.R. Shi, A. Marquis, and B. Gauthier, “Segmentation and representation of function words in preverbal French-learning infants,” in Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development (Cascadilla, Somerville, MA, 2006).
15.
15.A. Cutler, “Phonological cues to open- and closed-class words in the processing of spoken sentences,” J. Psycholinguist. Res.0090-6905 22, 109131 (1993).
16.
16.R. Shi, J. Morgan, and P. Allopenna, “Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective,” J. Child Lang.0305-0009 25, 169201 (1998).
17.
17.H. Bortfeld, J. Morgan, R. Golinkoff, and K. Rathbun, “Mommy and Me: Familiar names help launch babies into speech stream segmentation,” Psychol. Sci.0956-7976 16, 298304 (2005).
18.
18.M. Brent and J. Siskind, “The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development,” Cognition0010-0277 81, B3344 (2001).
19.
19.E. Bates, I. Bretherton, and L. Snyder, From First Words to Grammar (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988).
20.
20.N. Bernstein-Ratner and C. Pye, “Higher pitch in babytalk is not universal: Acoustic evidence from Quiche Mayan,” J. Child Lang0305-0009. 11, 515522 (1984).
21.
21.R. Higginson, “Fixing-assimilation in language acquisition,” Ph.D. thesis, Washington State University, 1985.
22.
22.L. Cohen, D. Atkinson, and H. Chaput, “Habit 2000: A new program for testing infant perception and cognition,” [Computer software]. Austin, the University of Texas, 2000.
23.
23.B. Fear, A. Cutler, and S. Butterfield, “The strong∕weak syllable distinction in English,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.0001-4966 97, 18931904 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.412063
24.
24.R. Shi, J. Werker, and J. Morgan, “Newborn infants’ sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words,” Cognition0010-0277 72, B1121 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00047-5
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947
2006-05-15
2015-07-02

Abstract

High-frequency functors are arguably among the earliest perceived word forms and may assist extraction of initial vocabulary items. Canadian 11- and -olds were familiarized to pseudo-nouns following either a high-frequency functor the or a low-frequency functor her versus phonetically similar mispronunciations of each, kuh and ler, and then tested for recognition of the pseudo-nouns. A preceding the (but not kuh, her, ler) facilitated extraction of the pseudo-nouns for -olds; the is thus well-specified in form for these infants. However, both the and kuh (but not her-ler) facilitated segmentation for -olds, suggesting an initial underspecified representation of high-frequency functors.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/1.2198947.html;jsessionid=2o8ihs9um1gt7.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address

Oops! This section does not exist...

Use the links on this page to find existing content.

752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Frequency and form as determinants of functor sensitivity in English-acquiring infants
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/119/6/10.1121/1.2198947
10.1121/1.2198947
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM