To segment words in unfamiliar speech, listeners are known to exploit both native prosodic cues and statistical cues available in the speech signal. However, how and when these cues are combined remains a matter of debate. Here, we studied how transitional probabilities (TPs) and prosodic phrasal boundaries are combined by French speakers to segment words. Since French does not have lexical stress, prosodic phrasal boundaries unambiguously signal word boundaries, providing a unique possibility to test whether prosodic cues can overcome statistical ones, and constrain further statistically based segmentation. We tested French adults in an artificial speech segmentation task, manipulating the consistency between prosodic and TP cues, signaling either the same or different word boundaries. Results showed that participants favored prosodic phrasal boundaries over TPs, regardless of exposure time to the speech stream (Experiment 1: 3.5 minutes; Experiment 2: 7 min), supporting a prosodically driven statistical segmentation of the speech stream.
AslinR. N.SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00063
2.
BagouO.FougeronC.FrauenfelderU. H. (2002). Contribution of prosody to the segmentation and storage of “words“ in the acquisition of a new mini-language. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, 159–162. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive
3.
BagouO.FrauenfelderU. H. (2006). Stratégie de segmentation prosodique: Rôle des proéminences initiales et finales dans l’acquisition d’une langue artificielle. In Acte des XXVIèmes Journées d’Étude de la Parole (pp. 571–574). Dinard.
4.
BaillyG.BarbeT.WangH. D. (1991). Automatic labeling of large prosodic databases: Tools, methodology and links with a text-to-speech system [Conference session]. The ESCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Autrans. http://www.iscaaspeech.org/archive
5.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BatterinkL. J. (2017). Rapid statistical learning supporting word extraction from continuous speech. Psychological Science, 28(7), 921–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617698226
7.
BatterinkL. J.PallerK. A. (2019). Statistical learning of speech regularities can occur outside the focus of attention. Cortex, 115, 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.013
BenjaminL.FlóA.PaluM.NaikS.MelloniL.Dehaene-LambertzG. (2023). Tracking transitional probabilities and segmenting auditory sequences are dissociable processes in adults and neonates. Developmental Science, 26(2), Article e13300. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13300
10.
BonattiL. L.PeñaM.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Source: Psychological Science, 16(6), 451–459.
11.
CutlerA.MehlerJ. (1993). The periodicity bias. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 103–108.
12.
de Diego-BalaguerR.Martinez-AlvarezA.PonsF. (2016). Temporal attention as a scaffold for language development. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00044
13.
de Diego-BalaguerR.Rodríguez-FornellsA.Bachoud-LéviA.-C. (2015). Prosodic cues enhance rule learning by changing speech segmentation mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01478
14.
DelattreP. (1963). Comparing the prosodic features of English, German, Spanish and French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1, 193–201.
15.
DellF.HirstD.VergnaudJ.-R. (1984). Forme sonore du langage: Structure des représentations en phonologie (Vol. 1). Hermann.
16.
EndressA. D.BonattiL. L. (2007). Rapid learning of syllable classes from a perceptually continuous speech stream. Cognition, 105(2), 247–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.010
EricksonL. C.ThiessenE. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review, 37, 66–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.05.002
19.
FernandesT.VenturaP. (2007). Statistical information and coarticulation as cues to word boundaries: A matter of signal quality. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(6), 856–864.
FrazierL.CarlsonK.CliftonC. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002
22.
FrostR.ArmstrongB. C.ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Statistical learning research: A critical review and possible new directions. Psychological Bulletin, 145(12), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000210
23.
GambellT.YangC. (2005). Word segmentation: Quick but not dirty.
24.
GordonM.RoettgerT. (2017). Acoustic correlates of word stress: A cross-linguistic survey. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1), 20170007. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0007
25.
GrammontM. (1965). Traite De Phonetique. French & European Pubns.
26.
Hao WangF.LuoM.WangS. (2024). Statistical word segmentation succeeds given the minimal amount of exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 31(3), 1172–1180. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02386-z
HochL.TylerM. D.TillmannB. (2013). Regularity of unit length boosts statistical learning in verbal and nonverbal artificial languages. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(1), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0309-8
29.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP.HeibergerR. M.SchuetzenmeisterA.ScheibeS.HothornM. T. (2016). Package “multcomp.” Simultaneous inference in general parametric models (pp. 1–36) [Programari]. Project for Statistical Computing.
30.
JohnsonE. K.JusczykP. W. (2001). Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2755
LangusA.MarchettoE.BionR. A. H.NesporM. (2012). Can prosody be used to discover hierarchical structure in continuous speech?Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.004
35.
LehisteI. (1970). Suprasegmentals. MIT Press.
36.
MarimonM.Berdasco-MuñozE.HöhleB.NazziT. (2025). Use of statistical and acoustic cues for speech segmentation in French-learning 7-month-old infants and French-speaking adults. Open Mind, 9, 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00184
37.
MarimonM.HöhleB.LangusA. (2022). Pupillary entrainment reveals individual differences in cue weighting in 9-month-old German-learning infants. Cognition, 224, 105054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105054
38.
MattysS. L.MelhornJ. F.WhiteL. (2007). Effects of syntactic expectations on speech segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 960–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.960
39.
MattysS. L.WhiteL.MelhornJ. F. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.477
40.
MersadK.NazziT. (2012). When mommy comes to the rescue of statistics: Infants combine top-down and bottom-up cues to segment speech. Language Learning and Development, 8(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.609106
41.
MichelasA.d’ImperioM. (2010). Durational cues and prosodic phrasing in French: Evidence for the intermediate phrase. Speech Prosody1–4. https://halscience/hal00463205
42.
Moreno-MartínezF. J.MontoroP. R. (2012). An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables. PLOS ONE, 7(5), Article e37527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037527
43.
MorganJ. L.DemuthK. (1996). Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
44.
OrdinM.NesporM. (2013). Transition probabilities and different levels of prominence in segmentation. Language Learning, 63(4), 800–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12024
45.
OrdinM.PolyanskayaL.SamuelA. G. (2021). An evolutionary account of intermodality differences in statistical learning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1486(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14502
46.
PalmerS. D.MattysS. L. (2016). Speech segmentation by statistical learning is supported by domain-general processes within working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(12), 2390–2401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1112825
47.
PeperkampS.VendelinI.DupouxE. (2010). Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.001
48.
PerforsA. F.TenenbaumJ. B. (2009). Learning to learn categories. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 136–141.
49.
RollandG.LoevenbruckH. (2002). Characteristics of the accentual phrase in French: An acoustic, articulatory and perceptual study. Speech Prosody. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive
50.
SaffranJ. R. (2020). Statistical language learning in infancy. Child Development Perspectives, 14(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12355
SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L.AslinR. N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0032
53.
SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L.AslinR. N.TunickR.a BarruecoS. (1997). Incidental language learning: Llistening (and learning) out of the comer of your ear. Psychological Science, 8(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00690.x
54.
SaksidaA.LangusA.NesporM. (2017). Co-occurrence statistics as a language-dependent cue for speech segmentation. Developmental Science, 20(3), Article e12390. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12390
55.
SalakhutdinovR. R.TenenbaumJ. B.TorralbaA. (2012). One-Shot Learning with a Hierarchical Nonparametric Bayesian Model. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 27, 195–206.
56.
SandersL. D.NevilleH. J. (2000). Lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues for speech segmentation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(6), 1301–1321. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4306.1301
ShuklaM. (2006). Prosodic Constraints on statistical strategies in segmenting fluent speech [Phd dissertation].
59.
ShuklaM.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2007). An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 54(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.002
60.
SiegelmanN.BogaertsL.ChristiansenM. H.FrostR. (2017). Towards a theory of individual differences in statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1711), 20160059. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0059
61.
SmithL. B.JayaramanS.ClerkinE.YuC. (2018). The developing infant creates a curriculum for statistical learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.004
62.
SmithL. B.SuandaS. H.YuC. (2014). The unrealized promise of infant statistical word-referent learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.007
63.
SohailJ.JohnsonE. K. (2016). How transitional probabilities and the edge effect contribute to listeners’ phonological bootstrapping success. Language Learning and Development, 12(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2015.1073153
64.
SpinelliE.GrimaultN.MeunierF.WelbyP. (2010). An intonational cue to word segmentation in phonemically identical sequences. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72(3), 775–787.
65.
ThiessenE. D.KronsteinA. T.HufnagleD. G. (2013). The extraction and integration framework: A two-process account of statistical learning. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 792–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030801
66.
ToroJ. M.Sebastián-GallésN.MattysS. L. (2009). The role of perceptual salience during the segmentation of connected speech. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802405584
Toro-SotoJ. M.Rodríguez-fornellsA.Sebastián-GallésN. (2007). Stress placement and word segmentation by Spanish speakers. Psicológica, 28, 167–176.
69.
TournemireD. S. (1994). Recherche d’une stylisation extrème des contours de F0 en vue de leur apprentissage automatique. Journées d’Etudes sur la Parole, 75–80.
70.
TranelB. (1987). The sounds of French: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
71.
TremblayA.NamjoshiJ.SpinelliE.BroersmaM.ChoT.KimS.Martínez-GarcíaM. T.ConnellK. (2017). Experience with a second language affects the use of fundamental frequency in speech segmentation. PLOS ONE, 12(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181709
72.
Turk-BrowneN. B.JungéJ. A.SchollB. J. (2005). The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 552–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.552
73.
TylerM. D.CutlerA. (2009). Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(1), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3129127
74.
Van Der HulstH.GoedemansR. (2009). The separation of accent and rhythm: Evidence from StressTyp. In EveraertM.MusgraveS. (Eds.), The use of databases in cross-linguistics research (pp. 235–282). Mouton de Gruyter.
75.
VroomenJ.TuomainenJ.De GelderB. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2548
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
