Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:22:45.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What can Neighbourhood Density effects tell us about word learning? Insights from a connectionist model of vocabulary development*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

MARTIN TAKAC ,
ALISTAIR KNOTT  and
STEPHANIE STOKES
MARTIN TAKAC*
Affiliation:
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia andUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
ALISTAIR KNOTT
Affiliation:
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
STEPHANIE STOKES
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
*
Address for correspondence: Martin Takac, Comenius University – Centre for Cognitive Science, Mlynská dolina, Bratislava 84248, Slovakia. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the effect of neighbourhood density (ND) on vocabulary size in a computational model of vocabulary development. A word has a high ND if there are many words phonologically similar to it. High ND words are more easily learned by infants of all abilities (e.g. Storkel, 2009; Stokes, 2014). We present a neural network model that learns general phonotactic patterns in the exposure language, as well as specific word forms and, crucially, mappings between word meanings and word forms. The network is faster at learning frequent words, and words containing high-probability phoneme sequences, as human word learners are, but, independently of this, the network is also faster at learning words with high ND, and, when its capacity is reduced, it learns high ND words in preference to other words, similarly to late talkers. We analyze the model and propose a novel explanation of the ND effect, in which word meanings play an important role in generating word-specific biases on general phonological trajectories. This explanation leads to a new prediction about the origin of the ND effect in infants.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 346 - 379
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

We are grateful to the Marsden fund of New Zealand for Grant 13-UOO-048 and Slovak VEGA agency for grant 1/0898/14 (Martin Takac). Big thanks to Jen Hay and Pat LaShell for the statistical analyses in this paper. We would also like to thank Igor Farkaš for valuable discussions on neural network issues. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of this paper for their numerous helpful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & van Rijn, H. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, M., Allen, J. & Seidenberg, M. (1998). Learning to segment speech using multiple cues: a connectionist model. Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 221–68.Google Scholar
Cottrell, G. & Plunkett, K. (1994). Acquiring the mapping from meaning to sounds. Connection Science 6, 379–412.Google Scholar
De Cara, B. & Goswami, U. (2002). Statistical analysis of similarity relations among spoken words: evidence for the special status of rimes in English. Behavioural Research Methods and Instrumentation 34(3), 416–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G., Juliano, C. & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: a theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science 17(2), 149–95.Google Scholar
Dziak, J. J., Coffman, D. L., Lanza, S. T. & Li, R. (2012). Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Technical Report #12-119, College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.Google Scholar
Elman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. & Reilly, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(5), i–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, S. A., Large, N. R. & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: a distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 613–656.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Pierrehumbert, J. & Beckman, M. (2003). Speech perception, well-formedness, and the statistics of the lexicon. In Local, J., Ogden, R. & Temple, R. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology VI, 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klee, T. & Harrison, C. (2001). CDI words and sentences validity and preliminary norms for British English. Paper presented at Child Language Seminar, University of Hertfordshire, England.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 9(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Li, P. & MacWhinney, B. (2002). PatPho: a phonological pattern generator for neural networks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 34, 408–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science 31, 133–56.Google Scholar
Miikkulainen, R. (1997). Dyslexic and category-specific aphasic impairments in a self-organizing feature map model of the lexicon. Brain and Language 59, 334–66.Google Scholar
Moyle, J., Stokes, S. & Klee, T. (2011). Early language delay and specific language impairment. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 17, 160–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J. & the PDP research group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleeremans, A. & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Graded state machines: the representation of temporal contingencies in simple recurrent networks. Machine Learning 7(2/3), 161–93.Google Scholar
Shillcock, R., Cairns, P., Chater, N. & Levy, J. (2000). Statistical and connectionist modelling of the development of speech segmentation. In Broeder, P. & Murre, J. (eds), Models of language learning, 103–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sibley, D., Kello, C., Plaut, D. & Elman, J. (2008). Large-scale modeling of wordform learning and representation. Cognitive Science 32, 741–54.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. (2010). Neighborhood density and word frequency predict vocabulary size in toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 670–83.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. (2014). The impact of phonological neighbourhood density on typical and atypical emerging lexicons. Journal of Child Language 41(3), 634–57.Google Scholar
Stokes, S., Bleses, D., Basbøll, H. & Lambertsen, C. (2012). Statistical learning in emerging lexicons: the case of Danish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, 1265–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S., Kern, S. & dos Santos, C. (2012). Extended statistical learning as an account for slow vocabulary growth. Journal of Child Language 39(1), 105–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, S. & Klee, T. (2009). Factors that influence vocabulary development in two-year-old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50, 498–505.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2008). First utterances. In Rickheit, G. & Strohner, H. (eds), The balancing act: combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language, 125–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language 36, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Lee, S.-Y. (2011). The independent effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on lexical acquisition by preschool children. Language & Cognition Processes 26(2), 191–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takac, M. & Knott., A. (2015). A neural network model of episode representations in working memory. Cognitive Computation 7(5), 509–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevich, M. & Storkel, H. (2012). Examining the acquisition of phonological word forms with computational experiments. Language and Speech 56(4), 493–527.Google Scholar
Werbos, P. J. (1990). Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it. Proceedings of the IEEE 78(10), 1550–60.Google Scholar