Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types

Word-types represent the primary form of data for many models of phonological learning, and they often predict performance in psycholinguistic tasks. Word-types are often tacitly defined as phonologically unique words. Yet, an explicit test of this definition is lacking, and natural language pattern...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Peter Richtsmeier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Library of Humanities 2016-08-01
Series:Laboratory Phonology
Online Access:http://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/39
id doaj-d3d6c6ff4ab0470ea2a12e94ae379ded
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d3d6c6ff4ab0470ea2a12e94ae379ded2021-10-02T02:30:56ZengOpen Library of HumanitiesLaboratory Phonology1868-63541868-63542016-08-017110.5334/labphon.3914Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-TypesPeter Richtsmeier0Purdue UniversityWord-types represent the primary form of data for many models of phonological learning, and they often predict performance in psycholinguistic tasks. Word-types are often tacitly defined as phonologically unique words. Yet, an explicit test of this definition is lacking, and natural language patterning suggests that word meaning could also act as a cue to word-type status. This possibility was tested in a statistical phonotactic learning experiment in which phonological and semantic properties of word-types varied. During familiarization, the learning targets—word-medial consonant sequences—were instantiated either by four related word-types or by just one word-type (the experimental frequency factor). The expectation was that more word-types would lead participants to generalize the target sequences. Regarding semantic cues, related word-types were either associated with different referents or all with a single referent. Regarding phonological cues, related word-types differed from each other by one, two, or more phonemes. At test, participants rated novel wordforms for their similarity to the familiarization words. When participants heard four related word-types, they gave higher ratings to test words with the same consonant sequences, irrespective of the phonological and semantic manipulations. The results support the existing phonological definition of word-types.http://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/39
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Peter Richtsmeier
spellingShingle Peter Richtsmeier
Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
Laboratory Phonology
author_facet Peter Richtsmeier
author_sort Peter Richtsmeier
title Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
title_short Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
title_full Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
title_fullStr Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
title_full_unstemmed Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types
title_sort phonological and semantic cues to learning from word-types
publisher Open Library of Humanities
series Laboratory Phonology
issn 1868-6354
1868-6354
publishDate 2016-08-01
description Word-types represent the primary form of data for many models of phonological learning, and they often predict performance in psycholinguistic tasks. Word-types are often tacitly defined as phonologically unique words. Yet, an explicit test of this definition is lacking, and natural language patterning suggests that word meaning could also act as a cue to word-type status. This possibility was tested in a statistical phonotactic learning experiment in which phonological and semantic properties of word-types varied. During familiarization, the learning targets—word-medial consonant sequences—were instantiated either by four related word-types or by just one word-type (the experimental frequency factor). The expectation was that more word-types would lead participants to generalize the target sequences. Regarding semantic cues, related word-types were either associated with different referents or all with a single referent. Regarding phonological cues, related word-types differed from each other by one, two, or more phonemes. At test, participants rated novel wordforms for their similarity to the familiarization words. When participants heard four related word-types, they gave higher ratings to test words with the same consonant sequences, irrespective of the phonological and semantic manipulations. The results support the existing phonological definition of word-types.
url http://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/39
work_keys_str_mv AT peterrichtsmeier phonologicalandsemanticcuestolearningfromwordtypes
_version_ 1716860257602371584