Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-11
The influence of language-specific properties on the role of consonants and vowels in a statistical learning task of an artificial language: A cross-linguistic comparison
The contribution of consonants and vowels in spoken word processing has been widely investigated, and studies have found a phenomenon of a Consonantal bias (C-bias), indicating that consonants carry more weight than vowels. However, across languages, various patterns have been documented, including that of no preference or a reverse pattern of Vowel bias. A central question is how the manifestation of the C-bias is modulated by language-specific factors. This question can be addressed by cross-linguistic studies. Comparing native Hebrew and native English speakers, this study examines the relative importance of transitional probabilities between non-adjacent consonants as opposed to vowels during auditory statistical learning (SL) of an artificial language. Hebrew is interesting because its complex Semitic morphological structure has been found to play a central role in lexical access, allowing us to examine whether morphological properties can modulate the C-bias in early phases of speech perception, namely, word segmentation. As predicted, we found a significant interaction between language and consonant/vowel manipulation, with a higher performance in the consonantal condition than in the vowel condition for Hebrew speakers, namely, C-bias, and no consonant/vowel asymmetry among English speakers. We suggest that the observed interaction is morphologically anchored, indicating that phonological and morphological processes interact during early phases of auditory word perception.
AdriaansF.KagerR. (2010). Adding generalization to statistical learning: The induction of phonotactics from continuous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.007
2.
AronoffM. (1994). Morphology by itself stems and inflectional classes. The MIT Press.
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BouchonC.FlocciaC.FuxT.Adda-DeckerM.NazziT. (2015). Call me Alix, not Elix: Vowels are more important than consonants in own-name recognition at 5 months. Developmental Science, 18(4), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12242
7.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 207–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000106
8.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.521022
9.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2013). Morphological structure in the Arabic mental lexicon: Parallels between standard and dialectal Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1453–1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.719629
10.
BrehmL.AldayP. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104334
11.
ChenF.WongM. L. Y.ZhuS.WongL. L. N. (2015). Relative contributions of vowels and consonants in recognizing isolated Mandarin words. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.003
12.
ChenH.LeeD. T.LuoZ.LaiR. Y.CheungH.NazziT. (2021). Variation in phonological bias: Bias for vowels, rather than consonants or tones in lexical processing by Cantonese-learning toddlers. Cognition, 213, 104486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104486
13.
CreelS. C.AslinR. N.TanenhausM. K. (2006). Acquiring an artificial lexicon: Segment type and order information in early lexical entries. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.09.003
14.
CunilleraT.CàmaraE.ToroJ. M.Marco-PallaresJ.Sebastián-GallesN.OrtizH.PujolJ.Rodríguez-FornellsA. (2009). Time course and functional neuroanatomy of speech segmentation in adults. NeuroImage, 48(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.069
15.
CutlerA.OtakeT. (2002). Rhythmic categories in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2814
16.
CutlerA.Sebastian-GallesN.Soler-VilageliuO.Van OoijenB. (2000). Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 28(5), 746–755. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198409
17.
Delle LucheC.PoltrockS.GoslinJ.NewB.FlocciaC.NazziT. (2014). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in the auditory modality: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.001
18.
DeutschA. (2016). The separability of morphological processes from semantic meaning and syntactic class in production of single words: Evidence from the Hebrew root morpheme. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9317-3
19.
DeutschA.FrostR.PellegS.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 415–422. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196500
20.
DeutschA.FrostR.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2000). Early morphological effects in word recognition in Hebrew: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119670
21.
DeutschA.FrostR.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2005). Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 341–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000115
22.
DeutschA.MeirA. (2011). The role of the root morpheme in mediating word production in Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 716–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.496238
23.
DeutschA.VelanH.MerzbachY.MichalyT. (2021). The dependence of root extraction in a non-concatenated morphology on the word-specific orthographic context. Journal of Memory and Language, 116, 104182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104182
24.
DeutschA.VelanH.MichalyT. (2018). Decomposition in a non-concatenated morphological structure involves more than just the roots: Evidence from fast priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1250788
25.
ElazarA.AlhamaR. G.BogaertsL.SiegelmanN.BausC.FrostR. (2022). When the “Tabula” is anything but “Rasa”: What determines performance in the auditory statistical learning task?Cognitive Science, 46(2), Article e13102. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13102
26.
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
27.
EscuderoP.MulakK. E.VlachH. A. (2016). Cross-situational learning of minimal word pairs. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12243
28.
FinnA. S.Hudson KamC. L. (2008). The curse of knowledge: First language knowledge impairs adult learners’ use of novel statistics for word segmentation. Cognition, 108(2), 477–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.002
29.
FlocciaC.NazziT.Delle LucheC.PoltrockS.GoslinJ. (2014). English-learning one- to two-year-olds do not show a consonant bias in word learning. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1085–1114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000287
30.
FrostR.DeutschA.ForsterK. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.4.829
31.
FrostR.KuglerT.DeutschA.ForsterK. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 31(6), 1293–1326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1293
32.
GervainJ.NesporM.MazukaR.HorieR.MehlerJ. (2008). Bootstrapping word order in prelexical infants: A Japanese–Italian cross-linguistic study. Cognitive Psychology, 57(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.001
33.
GervainJ.Sebastián-GallésN.DíazB.LakaI.MazukaR.YamaneN.. . .MehlerJ. (2013). Word frequency cues word order in adults: Cross-linguistic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00689
34.
GómezD. M.MokP.OrdinM.MehlerJ.NesporM. (2018). Statistical speech segmentation in tone languages: The role of lexical tones. Language and Speech, 61(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917706529
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). Simr: An R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi:10.1111/2041-210X
37.
GwilliamsL.MarantzA. (2015). Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: The influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language, 147, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.04.006
38.
HavyM.SerresJ.NazziT. (2014). A consonant/vowel asymmetry in word-form processing: Evidence in childhood and in adulthood. Language and Speech, 57(2), 254–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913507693
39.
HochmannJ. R.Benavides-VarelaS.FlóA.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2018). Bias for vocalic over consonantal information in 6-month-olds. Infancy, 23(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12203
40.
HochmannJ. R.Benavides-VarelaS.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2011). Consonants and vowels: Different roles in early language acquisition. Developmental Science, 14(6), 1445–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01089.x
41.
HøjenA.NazziT. (2016). Vowel bias in Danish word-learning: Processing biases are language-specific. Developmental Science, 19(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12286
42.
KeidelJ. L.JenisonR. L.KluenderK. R.SeidenbergM. S. (2007). Does grammar constrain statistical learning? Commentary on Bonatti, Peña, Nespor, and Mehler (2005). Psychological Science, 18(10), 922–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02001.x
43.
KolanL.LeikinM.ZwitserloodP. (2011). Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture-word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.004
44.
Lador-WeizmanY.DeutschA. (2022). The contribution of consonants and vowels to auditory word recognition is shaped by language-specific properties: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(5), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001000
45.
MehlerJ.PeñaM.NesporM.BonattiL. (2006). The “soul” of language does not use statistics: Reflections on vowels and consonants. Cortex, 42(6), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70427-1
46.
MersadK.NazziT. (2011). Transitional probabilities and positional frequency phonotactics in a hierarchical model of speech segmentation. Memory & Cognition, 39(6), 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0074-3
NazziT.FlocciaC.MoquetB.ButlerJ. (2009). Bias for consonantal information over vocalic information in 30-month-olds: Cross-linguistic evidence from French and English. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(4), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.003
50.
NazziT.PoltrockS.Von HolzenK. (2016). The developmental origins of the consonant bias in lexical processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416655786
51.
NesporM.PeñaM.MehlerJ. (2003). On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1418/10879
52.
NewportE. L.AslinR. N. (2004). Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00128-2
PoltrockS.NazziT. (2015). Consonant/vowel asymmetry in early word form recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.011
57.
PoltrockS.ChenH.KwokC.CheungH.NazziT. (2018). Adult learning of novel words in a non-native language: Consonants, vowels, and tones. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01211
QiZ.Sanchez AraujoY.GeorganW. C.GabrieliJ. D.ArciuliJ. (2019). Hearing matters more than seeing: A cross-modality study of statistical learning and reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1485680
60.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
61.
RombergA. R.SaffranJ. R. (2013). All together now: Concurrent learning of multiple structures in an artificial language. Cognitive Science, 37, 1290–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12050
62.
SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L.AslinR. N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0032
63.
SaffranJ. R.NewportE. L.AslinR. N.TunickR. A.BarruecoS. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00690.x
64.
ShimronJ. (2006). Reading Hebrew: The language and the psychology of reading it. Lawrence Erlbaum.
SiegelmanN.BogaertsL.FrostR. (2017). Measuring individual differences in statistical learning: Current pitfalls and possible solutions. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0719-z
67.
SiegelmanN.FrostR. (2015). Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.00
68.
ToroJ. M.NesporM.MehlerJ.BonattiL. L. (2008). Finding words and rules in a speech stream: Functional differences between vowels and consonants: Research article. Psychological Science, 19(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02059.x
69.
ToroJ. M.PonsF.BionR. A.Sebastián-GallésN. (2011). The contribution of language-specific knowledge in the selection of statistically-coherent word candidates. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.005
70.
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
71.
TreccaF.McCauleyS. M.AndersenS. R.BlesesD.BasbøllH.HøjenA.MadsenT. O.RibuI. S. B.ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Segmentation of highly vocalic speech via statistical learning: Insights from a cross-linguistic study of Danish, Norwegian, and English. Language Learning, 69, 143–176. http://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12325
72.
UssishkinA.DawsonC. R.WedelA.SchluterK. (2015). Auditory masked priming in Maltese spoken word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1096–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1005635
73.
VelanH.FrostR. (2009). Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.003
74.
WewalaarachchiT. D.WongL. H.SinghL. (2017). Vowels, consonants, and lexical tones: Sensitivity to phonological variation in monolingual Mandarin and bilingual English–Mandarin toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.009
75.
WienerS.TurnbullR. (2016). Constraints of tones, vowels and consonants on lexical selection in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Speech, 59(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915578000
76.
ZetterstenM.PotterC. E.SaffranJ. R. (2020). Tuning in to non-adjacencies: Exposure to learnable patterns supports discovering otherwise difficult structures. Cognition, 202, 104283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104283
Supplementary Material
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.
