Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:19:52.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Klingon to Colbertian: Using Artificial Languages to Study Word Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2019

Sayuri Hayakawa ,
Siqi Ning  and
Viorica Marian
Sayuri Hayakawa*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Siqi Ning
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Viorica Marian
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Address for correspondence: Dr. Sayuri Hayakawa, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vocabulary acquisition is a critical part of learning a new language. Yet, due to structural, historical, and individual variability associated with natural languages, isolating the impact of specific factors on word learning can be challenging. Artificial languages are versatile tools for addressing this problem, allowing researchers to systematically manipulate properties of the language and control for learners’ past experiences. Here, we review how artificial languages have been used to study bilingual word learning, with a particular focus on the influences of language input (e.g., word properties) and language experience (e.g., bilingualism). We additionally discuss the advantages and limitations of artificial languages for bilingual research and suggest resources for researchers considering the use of artificial languages. Used and interpreted properly, artificial language studies can inform our understanding of a wide range of factors relevant to word learning.

Keywords

artificial languagesword learningvocabulary acquisitionbilingualism
Type
Review Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 74 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antoniou, M, Liang, E, Ettlinger, M and Wong, PC (2015) The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18, 683–695.Google Scholar
Bartolotti, J and Marian, V (2012) Language learning and control in monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognitive Science 36, 1129–1147.Google Scholar
Bartolotti, J and Marian, V (2017) Orthographic knowledge and lexical form influence vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 38, 427–456.Google Scholar
Bartolotti, J, Marian, V, Schroeder, SR and Shook, A (2011) Bilingualism and inhibitory control influence statistical learning of novel word forms. Frontiers in Psychology 2, 1–9.Google Scholar
Brojde, C, Ahmed, S and Colunga, E (2012) Bilingual and monolingual children attend to different cues when learning new words. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 1–11.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M and New, B (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41, 977–990.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M, Buchmeier, M, Conrad, M, Jacobs, AM, Bölte, J & Böhl, A (2011) The word frequency effect: a review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology 58, 412–424.Google Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K and Werker, JF (2009) Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: infants' language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science 12, 815–823.Google Scholar
Cai, Q and Brysbaert, M (2010) SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese Word and Character Frequencies Based on Film Subtitles. Plos ONE 5, e10729.Google Scholar
Crossley, SA, Allen, LK, Kyle, K and McNamara, DS (2014) Analyzing discourse processing using a simple natural language processing tool. Discourse Processes 51, 511–534.Google Scholar
Davidson, D, Jergovic, D, Imami, Z and Theodos, V (1997) Monolingual and bilingual children's use of the mutual exclusivity constraint. Journal of Child Language 24, 3–24.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R (1997) THE EXPERANTO EXPERIMENT: Effects of Explicit Instruction on Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 249–276.Google Scholar
de Groot, AMB (2006) Effects of Stimulus Characteristics and Background Music on Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning and Forgetting. Language Learning 56, 463–506.Google Scholar
de Groot, AMB and Keijzer, R (2000) What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning 50, 1–56.Google Scholar
Eaton, HS (1927) The educational value of an artificial language. The Modern Language Journal 12, 87–94.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, M, Morgan-Short, K, Faretta-Stutenberg, M and Wong, PC (2016) The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science 40, 822–847.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M and Nicol, J (2003) Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 24, 369–383.Google Scholar
Friederici, AD, Steinhauer, K and Pfeifer, E (2002) Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 529–534.Google Scholar
Gutieérrez-Clellen, VF and Penña, E (2001) Dynamic assessment of diverse children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.Google Scholar
Hasson, N, Camilleri, B, Jones, C, Smith, J and Dodd, B (2013) Discriminating disorder from difference using dynamic assessment with bilingual children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29, 57–75.Google Scholar
Hirosh, Z and Degani, T (2018) Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language learning: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25, 892–916.Google Scholar
Kapa, L and Colombo, J (2014) Executive function predicts artificial language learning. Journal of Memory and Language 76, 237–252.Google Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M and Marian, V (2009a) The bilingual advantage in novel word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 705–710.Google Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M and Marian, V (2009b) Bilingualism reduces native-language interference during novel-word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35, 829–835.Google Scholar
Kersten, AW and Earles, JL (2001) Less really is more for adults learning a miniature artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 250–273.Google Scholar
Keshavarz, MH and Astaneh, H (2004) The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary as a foreign language (L3). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7, 295–302.Google Scholar
Kiss, C and Nikolov, M (2005) Developing, Piloting, and Validating an Instrument to Measure Young Learners’ Aptitude. Language Learning 55, 99–150.Google Scholar
Kroll, JF and Stewart, E (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Marian, V (2017) Orthographic and phonological neighborhood databases across multiple languages. Written Language & Literacy 20, 6–26.Google Scholar
Marian, V, Bartolotti, J, Chabal, S and Shook, A (2012) CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PloS One 7, e43230.Google Scholar
Markman, EM and Wachtel, GF (1988) Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology 20, 121–157.Google Scholar
Menjivar, J and Akhtar, N (2017) Language experience and preschoolers' foreign word learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20, 642–648.Google Scholar
Mitchel, AD and Weiss, DJ (2010) What's in a face? Visual contributions to speech segmentation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 456–482.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K, Sanz, C, Steinhauer, K and Ullman, MT (2010) Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning 60, 154–193.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K, Steinhauer, K, Sanz, C and Ullman, MT (2012) Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24, 933–947.Google Scholar
Papagno, C, Valentine, T and Baddeley, A (1991) Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 331–347.Google Scholar
Potter, MC, So, K-F, Von Eckardt, B and Feldman, LB (1984) Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23, 23–38.Google Scholar
Simons, GF & Fennig, CD (2018) Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Twenty-first edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Tinkham, T (1993) The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System 21, 371–380.Google Scholar
Van Hell, JG and Mahn, AC (1997) Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal in learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced foreign language learners. Language Learning 47, 507–546.Google Scholar
Van Trijp, R (2010) Grammaticalization and semantic maps: Evidence from artificial language Evolution. Linguistic Discovery 8, 310–326.Google Scholar
Webb, S (2005) Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 33–52.Google Scholar
Weiss, DJ, Gerfen, C and Mitchel, AD (2009) Speech segmentation in a simulated bilingual environment: A challenge for statistical learning?. Language Learning and Development 5, 30–49.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H, Tran, D, Benitez, V and Kuwabara, M (2011) Inhibition and Adjective Learning in Bilingual and Monolingual Children. Frontiers in Psychology 2, 1–14.Google Scholar