Search

Input variability is key in many aspects of linguistic learning, yet variability increases input complexity, which may cause difficulty in some learning contexts. The current work investigates this trade-off by comparing speaker variability effects on L2 vocabulary learning in different age groups. Existing literature suggests that speaker variability benefits L2 vocabulary learning in adults, but this may not be the case for younger learners. In this study native English-speaking adults, 7- to 8-year-olds, and 10- to 11-year-olds learned six novel Lithuanian words from a single speaker, and six from eight speakers. In line with previous research, adults showed better production of the multispeaker items at test. No such benefit was found for either group of children, either in production or comprehension. Children also had greater difficulties in processing multiple-speaker cues during training. We conclude that age-related capacity limitations may constrain the ability to utilize speaker variability when learning words in a new language.

Input variability is key in many aspects of linguistic learning, yet variability increases input complexity, which may cause difficulty in some learning contexts. The current work investigates this trade-off by comparing speaker variability effects on L2 vocabulary learning in different age groups. Existing literature suggests that speaker variability benefits L2 vocabulary learning in adults, but this may not be the case for younger learners. In this study native English-speaking adults, 7- to 8-year-olds, and 10- to 11-year-olds learned six novel Lithuanian words from a single speaker, and six from eight speakers. In line with previous research, adults showed better production of the multispeaker items at test. No such benefit was found for either group of children, either in production or comprehension. Children also had greater difficulties in processing multiple-speaker cues during training. We conclude that age-related capacity limitations may constrain the ability to utilize speaker variability when learning words in a new language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Familiar collocations (e.g., "it's alright") are an important part of everyday conversation. Such word combinations are often retained in speakers with Broca's aphasia. However, only few investigations have studied the forms and functions of familiar collocations available to speakers with Broca's aphasia. Aims: We first apply a frequency-based perspective to word combinations produced by speakers with Broca's aphasia and their conversation partners (CPs), and compare the frequency characteristics of word combinations in dyadic and non-dyadic speech. Second, we investigate the conversational functions of one prominent familiar collocation, "I don't know" (IDK). Methods & Procedures: In the first analysis, speech samples from interactions of nine dyads (each a speaker with Broca's aphasia and their CP) were examined. Non-dyadic samples were selected from 39 speakers with Broca's aphasia from AphasiaBank (MacWhinney et al., 2011). The Frequency in Language Analysis Tool (FLAT; Zimmerer & Wibrow, 2015) was used to estimate collocation strength (the degree of association between words in a combination) of well-formed bigrams (two-word combinations) and trigrams (three-word combinations). The second analysis presents a qualitative investigation of uses of IDK in dyadic exchanges. Outcomes & Results: Analysis 1 revealed that residual trigrams in Broca's aphasia were more strongly collocated in comparison to language produced by CPs. There was no difference in frequency-based profiles between dyadic and non-dyadic aphasic speech. Analysis 2 indicated that speakers with Broca's aphasia and CPs used IDK to achieve a variety of communicative functions. However, patterns specific to each participant group were found. Conclusions: These findings highlight that frequency-based analysis is useful in explaining residual, grammatically well-formed word combinations in Broca's aphasia. This study provides evidence that IDK can aid turn construction in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Linguistica is the property of Linguistica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

• Phonetic training can enable learners to distinguish between non-native phonemes. • Seminal studies propose that high talker variability (HV) is key to generalisation. • We conducted a replication (N = 166) of seminal studies to test for such a HV benefit. • All evidence for a HV benefit was ambiguous, contradicting original findings. • Our study raises questions about the true size and robustness of the HV benefit. Acquiring non-native speech contrasts can be difficult. A seminal study by Logan, Lively and Pisoni (1991) established the effectiveness of phonetic training for improving non-native speech perception: Japanese learners of English were trained to perceive /r/-/l/ using minimal pairs over 15 training sessions. A pre/post-test design established learning and generalisation. In a follow-up study, Lively, Logan and Pisoni (1993) presented further evidence which suggested that talker variability in training stimuli was crucial in leading to greater generalisation. These findings have been very influential and "high variability phonetic training" is now a standard methodology in the field. However, while the general benefit of phonetic training is well replicated, the evidence for an advantage of high over lower variability training remains mixed. In a large-scale replication of the original studies using updated statistical analyses we test whether learners generalise more after phonetic training using multiple talkers over a single talker. We find that listeners learn in both multiple and single talker conditions. However, in training, we find no difference in how well listeners learn for high vs low variability training. When comparing generalisation to novel talkers after training in relation to pre-training accuracy, we find ambiguous evidence for a high-variability benefit over low-variability training: This means that if a high-variability benefit exists, the effect is much smaller than originally thought, such that it cannot be detected in our sample of 166 listeners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]