Prosodic bootstrapping

Last updated

Prosodic bootstrapping (also known as phonological bootstrapping) in linguistics refers to the hypothesis that learners of a primary language (L1) use prosodic features such as pitch, tempo, rhythm, amplitude, and other auditory aspects from the speech signal as a cue to identify other properties of grammar, such as syntactic structure. [1] Acoustically signaled prosodic units in the stream of speech may provide critical perceptual cues by which infants initially discover syntactic phrases in their language. [1] Although these features by themselves are not enough to help infants learn the entire syntax of their native language, they provide various cues about different grammatical properties of the language, such as identifying the ordering of heads and complements in the language using stress prominence, [2] indicating the location of phrase boundaries, and word boundaries. [3] It is argued that prosody of a language plays an initial role in the acquisition of the first language helping children to uncover the syntax of the language, mainly due to the fact that children are sensitive to prosodic cues at a very young age. [4]

Contents

Argument for

The argument for prosodic bootstrapping was first introduced by Gleitman and Wanner (1982), who observed that infants might use prosodic cues (particularly acoustic cues) to discover underlying grammatical information about their native language. These cues (e.g. intonation contour in a question phrase, lengthening a final segment) [1] could aid infants in dividing the speech input into different lexical units, and furthermore aid in placing these units into syntactic phrases appropriate to the language. [5]

Prosodic bootstrapping may also provide an explanation to the problem as to how infants segment continuous input. Just like adult speakers, children are exposed to continuous speech. Hearing continuous speech poses a problem for children learning their native language because pauses in speech do not align with word boundaries. As a result, children have to construct word representations from the speech that they hear. [6]

A study conducted by Christophe et al. (1994) showed that infants, aging three-days old, are sensitive to acoustic properties of a language. It was shown that three-day olds are able to discriminate bisyllabic stimuli with the same segments based on whether they were extracted from within a word or across a word boundary. The duration of the word initial consonant and the word final vowel are the cues for the existence of a word boundary, which infants may use to learn about syntactic structure. [6]

Another main support for the prosodic bootstrapping hypothesis is that the use of prosodic elements to segment parts of speech can occur at a very early age, as early as 3 days, [4] where infants have shown the ability to differentiate languages based on phonological characteristics alone, and the fact that the use of prosodic cues occurs before the use of lexical or syntactic data. This has led to hypothesis of "bootstrapping from the signal"/"prosodic bootstrapping", which has three main elements: [7]

  1. The syntax of language is correlated with acoustic properties.
  2. Infants can detect and are sensitive to these acoustic properties.
  3. These acoustic properties can be used by infants when processing speech.

Phonological phrases

A phonological phrase boundary indicates how the continuous speech stream is broken up into smaller units, which infants use to pick out and more closely identify individual parts of the sentence. [8] A phonological phrase can contain between four and seven syllables, and can be detected by infants, due to the fact that the edges of the phrases are either strengthened or lengthened. [9] Various studies have been done to test if prosody helps with acquisition of syntax, morphology, and phonology. [6] [10] [11] [12]

Another acoustic cue that indicates a prosodic boundary is the duration of a pause. These pauses will usually be longer in duration at the edge of a word boundary, when referring to clause boundaries. [7] For example, the two sentences below, while seemingly similar on the surface representation, have different prosodic structure, which correlates to the different syntactic structure ("..." = longer duration of pause in speech):

  1. "The boy met the girl at the teach in" → [The boy]NP ... [met the girl]VP ... [at the teach in]PP
  2. "The boy met the girl and the teacher" → [The boy]NP ... [met the girl and the teacher]VP

Using different durations of pause, the underlying syntactic structure can be better distinguished by the listener.

Acquiring lexicon

For infants who are learning their native language, it is difficult to extract words from speech waves because pronounced words are not separated by silence. There are several proposals for lexical acquisition. The first is that children hear words in isolation: if a new piece goes between two words that are known, the new piece must be a new word. The second proposal is that there are some cues in the speech that give signal to the presence of a word boundary: duration, pitch, energy. [6]

The fact that speech is presented in a continuous stream without pause only makes the task of acquiring a language more difficult for infants. [13] It has been proposed that prosodic features such as the strength of certain sounds, relative to their location in the word, can be used to break apart and identify fragments within the speech stream, in order to differentiate between potentially ambiguous sentences. [14] In English for example, the final [d] in the word "bold" tends to be "weak", in that it is not fully released. On the other hand, an initial [d] in a word such as "dime" is more clearly released, opposed to its word-final counterpart. [14] This difference in strong v. weak sounds may help to better identify where the sound occurs in the word, whether at the beginning or the end.

Studies have shown that phonological boundaries can be interpreted as word boundaries, which further aids the child in the task of developing a lexicon. [8] For example, Millotte et al. (2010) tested 16-month olds, observing how children use phonological phrase boundaries to constrain lexical access. When infants heard a prosodic boundary, they were able to detect the existence of a word boundary. In the experiments authors used the conditioned head-turn procedure which showed that when infants were trained to turn their heads for a bisyllabic word, they responded to sentences that contained this word more often than to those that contained both syllables of this word, but separated by a phonological phrase boundary. [11]

Because prosodic boundaries will never occur inside of a word, thus infants will not be constrained in how they identify words in the speech signal. For example, children can differentiate between words such as "dice" and "red ice", even though both are phonologically similar. This is because a prosodic boundary will not appear in the middle of the word *(d][ice) but around the word instead ([dice]). [14]

Children use phonological phrase boundaries to constrain lexical access. They infer the existence of a word boundary given a prosodic boundary. If two sequences differ in prosody while being made up of identical segments (pay per vs. paper), children treat them as different sequences. Studies that measured cues from prosody to phonological phrases have been done in a variety of languages that differ from each other, providing support that phonological phrases could possibly aid in acquiring lexicon universally. [11]

Acquiring syntax

In addition to helping to identify lexical items, a key element of prosodic bootstrapping involves using prosodic cues to identify syntactic knowledge about the language. [9] Because prosodic phrase boundaries are correlated to syntactic boundaries, listeners can determine the syntactic category of a word, using only prosodic boundary information. Christophe et al. (2008) demonstrated that adults could use prosodic phrases to determine the syntactic category of ambiguous words. Listeners were provided two sentences with an ambiguous word [mɔʀ], which could either belong to a verb category ("mord", translated as "it bites") or a noun category ("mort", translated as the adjective "dead"). [9]

CategorySentenceTranslation
Verb[le petit chien] [mord...][the little dog] [bites...]
Noun (adjective)[le petit chien mort...][the little dead dog...]

The table above depicts the two sentences heard by French-speaking adults in Christophe et al. (2008), where the emboldened word is the phonetically ambiguous word, and the brackets represent phonological phrase boundaries. [9] Using the position of the prosodic boundaries, adults were able to determine which category the ambiguous word [mɔʀ] belonged to, since the word is assigned to a different phonological phrase, depending on its syntactic category and semantic meaning in the sentence.

An important tool for acquiring syntax is the use of function words (e.g. articles, verb morphemes, prepositions) to point out syntactic constituent boundaries. [9] These function words frequently occur in language, and generally appear at the borders of prosodic units. Because of their high frequency in the input, and the fact that they tend to have only one to two syllables, infants are able to pick out these function words when they occur at the edges of a prosodic unit. In turn, the function words can help learners determine the syntactic category of the neighboring words (e.g., learning that the word "the" [ðə] introduces a noun phrase, and that suffixes such as "-ed" require a verb to precede it). [9] For example, in the sentence "The turtle is eating a pigeon", through the use of function words such as "the" and the auxiliary verb "is", children can get better sense as to where prosodic boundaries fall, resulting in a division such as [The turtle][is eating][a pigeon], where brackets indicate a boundary. As a result, infants tend to look out for these words to better identify the beginnings and ends of the prosodic units. [9] Noun articles like "the" or "a", in English for example, can only be followed by noun, since they are the only words that can fit this category; one would never hear a sentence such as "The *destroy was widespread". Likewise, the use of verb morphemes (e.g. past tense "-ed" [d]/[t], continuous "-ing" [iŋ], auxiliary "is" [ɪz]) indicate that a verb must precede it, and indicate that no other word can fill the category besides a verb (e.g. *"I saw that he *happyed yesterday").

In a study by Carvalho et al. (2016), experimenters tested preschool children, where they showed that by the age of 4 prosody is used in real time to determine what kind of syntactic structure sentences could have. The children in the experiments were able to determine the target word as a noun when it was in a sentence with a prosodic structure typical for a noun and as a verb when it was in a sentence with a prosodic structure typical for a verb. Children by the age of 4 use phrasal prosody to determine the syntactic structure of different sentences. [12]

Linguistic rhythm

Stress

Rhythm is an important aspect of prosody in terms of syllable timing and emphasis, and varies from language to language. [15] Languages are grouped into different categories based on their rhythm, primarily in stress based, rhythm (syllable) based, and mora based categories. [16] Infants around 6 months of age have shown to be able to differentiate between different languages solely on the basis of these particular stress differences. More specifically, infants by 2 months of age can from vague categories of different rhythmic structures, those that are native classes, and those that are nonnative. [16] Before reaching 2 months, infants can distinguish between languages of any class, but by the age of 2 months can only put languages in the native or nonnative class. For example, English speaking infants will have a hard time differentiating between English and Dutch (since both are stress based languages), but will be able to distinguish Russian (a stress based language) and Japanese (a mora based language). [15] By 2 months, however, an English-speaking baby will group syllable-timed and mora-timed languages into one "nonnative" group, and thus will have a hard time differentiating languages such as French (syllable-timed) and Japanese (mora-timed). [15] This stress variance is also a useful tool for bilingual infants, and acts as a strong indicator when differentiating between different languages being learned. [17]

Detecting head direction

The question of whether the head direction parameter can be detected using prosodic cues has been tested with French babies listening to Turkish sentences, [2] in order to determine whether or not 6 to 12 weeks old babies are sensitive to prosodic prominence in speech. Setting the head direction parameter allows infants to acquire a hierarchal branching structure for a particular language, which determines whether the language is left-headed (right-branching) or right-headed (left-branching). [1] This particular experiment (Christophe et al. 2003) had 6- to 12-week-old babies listening to modified "nonsense" (the modified French and modified Turkish sentences in the table below) sentences that were neither French nor Turkish, but only differed in the fact that the Turkish-based sentences were head final and French based sentenced were head initial. The reasoning behind this is that infants might be able detect prominence within these phonological phrases, as prominence has been shown to follow a systematic pattern with languages; head-initial languages have prominence on the right (French), while head-final languages have prominence on the left (Turkish). [2]

These nonsense sentences were created in order to eliminate any non-prosodic interference (e.g. phonological differences, different number of syllables, etc.) thus babies would only be able to differentiate between the two languages based on the prominence of prosodic cues in the sentences.

Language1st phonological phrase2nd phonological phrase
FrenchLe grand orang-outangétait énervé
TurkishYeni kitabɪmɪalmak istiyor
Modified Frenchleplem peleplemepe pemelse
Modified Turkishjeme pepepemeelmep espejel

The table above depicts the sentences heard by the French babies (translated as "The large orangoutang was nervous"), where the bolded and enlarged letter indicates word stress and prominence [2] (Christophe et al. 2003). As predicted, French babies tended to prefer the modified nonsense French phrases, based solely on prosodic prominence, given by the location of the head direction parameter.

Jusczyk et al. (1992) tested 9 month-olds, where they showed that infants are sensitive to acoustic correlates of main phrasal units that are present in the prosody of English sentences. The prosodic markers in the input are longer durations of the syllable that precedes a main phrasal boundary and declinations in fundamental frequency. [10]

Computational modeling

Several language models have been used to show that in a computational simulation, prosody can help children acquire syntax. [18] [19]

In one study, Gutman et al. (2015) build a computational model that used prosodic structure and function words to jointly determine the syntactic categories of words. The model assigned syntactic labels to prosodic phrases with success, using phrasal prosody to determine the boundaries of phrases, and function words at the edges for classification. The study presented the model of how early syntax acquisition is possible with the help of prosody: children access phrasal prosody and pay attention to words placed at the edges of prosodic boundaries. The idea behind the computational implementation is that prosodic boundaries signal syntactic boundaries and function words that are used to label the prosodic phrases. As an example, the sentence "She's eating a cherry" has a prosodic structure such as [She's eating] [a cherry] where the skeleton of a syntactic structure is [VN NP] (VN is for verbal nucleus where a phrase contains a verb and adjacent words such as auxiliaries and subject pronouns). Here, children may utilize their knowledge of function words and prosodic boundaries in order to create an approximation of syntactic structure. [18]

In a study by Pate et al. (2011), where a computational language model was presented, it was shown that acoustic cues can be helpful for determining syntactic structure when they are used with lexical information. Combining acoustic cues with lexical cues may usefully provide children with initial information about the place of syntactic phrases which supports the prosodic bootstrapping hypothesis. [19]

Criticism

A key criticism of the bootstrapping theory in general is that these mechanisms (whether they be syntactic, semantic, or prosodic) serve mainly as a starting point for learning the language. [5] That is, the bootstrapping mechanisms are only useful up to a certain point in linguistic development for infants, and thus there might be some other mechanism that might be used later on, since the bootstrapping mechanisms primarily use information that is not controlled for "cross-linguistic variation" (information that varies from language to language). [5]

Regarding prosodic bootstrapping in particular, there is speculation on how accurately prosodic phrases map to syntactic structure. [5] That is, phrases with identical syntactic structure can have different possible prosodic structures. In the sentence "The cat chased the rat that ate the cheese.", the prosodic structure would resemble:

[The cat] [chased the rat] [that ate the cheese]

However, the prosodic unit [chased the rat] in this case is not a syntactic constituent, demonstrating that not every prosodic unit is a syntactic unit. Rather, one can observe that a language may not always provide one-to-one mapping from prosodic information to linguistic units. Prosody does not give children direct and systematic information from prosodic structure to linguistic structure. [1]

Jusczyk (1997) argued that most people who accept this theory assume that children are drawing on "a range of information available in the speech signal that extends beyond prosody", [20] further explaining that relying on prosodic information alone is not enough to learn the structure of the language.

See also

Related Research Articles

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language. In other words, it is how human beings gain the ability to be aware of language, to understand it, and to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.

A syntactic category is a syntactic unit that theories of syntax assume. Word classes, largely corresponding to traditional parts of speech, are syntactic categories. In phrase structure grammars, the phrasal categories are also syntactic categories. Dependency grammars, however, do not acknowledge phrasal categories.

In linguistics, and particularly phonology, stress or accent is the relative emphasis or prominence given to a certain syllable in a word or to a certain word in a phrase or sentence. That emphasis is typically caused by such properties as increased loudness and vowel length, full articulation of the vowel, and changes in tone. The terms stress and accent are often used synonymously in that context but are sometimes distinguished. For example, when emphasis is produced through pitch alone, it is called pitch accent, and when produced through length alone, it is called quantitative accent. When caused by a combination of various intensified properties, it is called stress accent or dynamic accent; English uses what is called variable stress accent.

Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

In linguistics, prosody is the study of elements of speech that are not individual phonetic segments but which are properties of syllables and larger units of speech, including linguistic functions such as intonation, stress, and rhythm. Such elements are known as suprasegmentals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Word</span> Basic element of language

A word is a basic element of language that carries meaning, can be used on its own, and is uninterruptible. Despite the fact that language speakers often have an intuitive grasp of what a word is, there is no consensus among linguists on its definition and numerous attempts to find specific criteria of the concept remain controversial. Different standards have been proposed, depending on the theoretical background and descriptive context; these do not converge on a single definition. Some specific definitions of the term "word" are employed to convey its different meanings at different levels of description, for example based on phonological, grammatical or orthographic basis. Others suggest that the concept is simply a convention used in everyday situations.

The phonological hierarchy describes a series of increasingly smaller regions of a phonological utterance, each nested within the next highest region. Different research traditions make use of slightly different hierarchies. For instance, there is one hierarchy which is primarily used in theoretical phonology, while a similar hierarchy is used in discourse analysis. Both are described in the sections below.

Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of child language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. This theory proposes that children, when acquiring words, will recognize that words label conceptual categories, such as objects or actions. Children will then use these semantic categories as a cue to the syntactic categories, such as nouns and verbs. Having identified particular words as belonging to a syntactic category, they will then look for other correlated properties of those categories, which will allow them to identify how nouns and verbs are expressed in their language. Additionally, children will use perceived conceptual relations, such as Agent of an event, to identify grammatical relations, such as Subject of a sentence. This knowledge, in turn, allows the learner to look for other correlated properties of those grammatical relations.

Speech segmentation is the process of identifying the boundaries between words, syllables, or phonemes in spoken natural languages. The term applies both to the mental processes used by humans, and to artificial processes of natural language processing.

Bootstrapping is a term used in language acquisition in the field of linguistics. It refers to the idea that humans are born innately equipped with a mental faculty that forms the basis of language. It is this language faculty that allows children to effortlessly acquire language. As a process, bootstrapping can be divided into different domains, according to whether it involves semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, prosodic bootstrapping, or pragmatic bootstrapping.

Syntactic gemination, or syntactic doubling, is an external sandhi phenomenon in Italian, other Romance languages spoken in Italy, and Finnish. It consists in the lengthening (gemination) of the initial consonant in certain contexts. It may also be called word-initial gemination or phonosyntactic consonantal gemination.

In linguistics, a prosodic unit is a segment of speech that occurs with specific prosodic properties. These properties can be those of stress, intonation, or tonal patterns.

Phonological development refers to how children learn to organize sounds into meaning or language (phonology) during their stages of growth.

Metrical phonology is a theory of stress or linguistic prominence. The innovative feature of this theory is that the prominence of a unit is defined relative to other units in the same phrase. For example, in the most common pronunciation of the phrase "doctors use penicillin", the syllable '-ci-' is the strongest or most stressed syllable in the phrase, but the syllable 'doc-' is more stressed than the syllable '-tors'. Previously, generative phonologists and the American Structuralists represented prosodic prominence as a feature that applied to individual phonemes (segments) or syllables. This feature could take on multiple values to indicate various levels of stress. Stress was assigned using the cyclic reapplication of rules to words and phrases.

The phonology of second languages is different from the phonology of first languages in various ways. The differences are considered to come from general characteristics of second languages, such as slower speech rate, lower proficiency than native speakers, and from the interaction between non-native speakers' first and second languages.

In linguistics, functional morphemes, also sometimes referred to as functors, are building blocks for language acquisition. A functional morpheme is a morpheme which simply modifies the meaning of a word, rather than supplying the root meaning. Functional morpheme are generally considered a closed class, which means that new functional morphemes cannot normally be created.

Statistical language acquisition, a branch of developmental psycholinguistics, studies the process by which humans develop the ability to perceive, produce, comprehend, and communicate with natural language in all of its aspects through the use of general learning mechanisms operating on statistical patterns in the linguistic input. Statistical learning acquisition claims that infants' language-learning is based on pattern perception rather than an innate biological grammar. Several statistical elements such as frequency of words, frequent frames, phonotactic patterns and other regularities provide information on language structure and meaning for facilitation of language acquisition.

Syntactic bootstrapping is a theory in developmental psycholinguistics and language acquisition which proposes that children learn word meanings by recognizing syntactic categories and the structure of their language. It is proposed that children have innate knowledge of the links between syntactic and semantic categories and can use these observations to make inferences about word meaning. Learning words in one's native language can be challenging because the extralinguistic context of use does not give specific enough information about word meanings. Therefore, in addition to extralinguistic cues, conclusions about syntactic categories are made which then lead to inferences about a word's meaning. This theory aims to explain the acquisition of lexical categories such as verbs, nouns, etc. and functional categories such as case markers, determiners, etc.

Pitch accent is a term used in autosegmental-metrical theory for local intonational features that are associated with particular syllables. Within this framework, pitch accents are distinguished from both the abstract metrical stress and the acoustic stress of a syllable. Different languages specify different relationships between pitch accent and stress placement.

Statistical learning is the ability for humans and other animals to extract statistical regularities from the world around them to learn about the environment. Although statistical learning is now thought to be a generalized learning mechanism, the phenomenon was first identified in human infant language acquisition.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Lust, Barbara (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 290. ISBN   978-0-521-44922-9.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Christophe, Anne; Nespor, Marina; Guasti, Maria; Ooyen, Brit (2003). "Prosodic structure and syntactic acquisition: the case of the head-direction parameter". Developmental Science. 6 (2): 211–220. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00273. S2CID   2678108.
  3. ↑ Christophe, Anne; Guasti, Teresa; Nespor, Marina; Dupoux, Emmanuel; Ooyen, Brit V. (1997). "Reflections on Phonological Bootstrapping: Its Role for Lexical and Syntactic Acquisition". Language and Cognitive Prosesses. 12 (5–6): 585–612. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.554.9654 . doi:10.1080/016909697386637.
  4. 1 2 Christophe, Anne; Mehler, Jacques; Sebastían-Gallés, Núria (2001). "Perception of Prosodic boundary Correlates by Newborn Infants". Infancy. 2 (3): 385–394. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.535.5403 . doi:10.1207/s15327078in0203_6. PMID   33451208.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Höhle, Barbara (2009). "Bootstrapping mechanisms in first language acquisition" (PDF). Linguistics. 47 (2): 359–382. doi:10.1515/ling.2009.013. S2CID   145004323. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-10-28. Retrieved 2016-11-03.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Christophe, Anne; Dupoux, Emmanuel; Bertoncini, Josiane; Mehler, Jacques (1994-03-01). "Do infants perceive word boundaries? An empirical study of the bootstrapping of lexical acquisition". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 95 (3): 1570–1580. Bibcode:1994ASAJ...95.1570C. doi:10.1121/1.408544. ISSN   0001-4966. PMID   8176060. S2CID   12092331.
  7. 1 2 Soderstrom, Melanie; Seidl, Amanda; Kemler Nelson, Deborah; Jusczyk, Peter (2003). "The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants". Journal of Memory and Language. 49 (2): 249–267. doi:10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00024-x.
  8. 1 2 Gout, Ariel; Christophe, Anne; Morgan, James L. (2004). "Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical data access II. Infant data". Journal of Memory and Language. 51 (4): 548–567. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.002.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Christophe, Anne; Millotte, Séverine; Bernal, Savita; Lidz, Jeffrey (2008). "Bootstrapping Lexical and Syntactic Acquisition". Language and Speech. 51 (1–2): 61–75. doi:10.1177/00238309080510010501. PMID   18561544. S2CID   6323027.
  10. 1 2 Jusczyk, P. W.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Nelson, D. G.; Kennedy, L. J.; Woodward, A.; Piwoz, J. (1992-04-01). "Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants". Cognitive Psychology. 24 (2): 252–293. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90009-q. ISSN   0010-0285. PMID   1582173. S2CID   22670874.
  11. 1 2 3 Millotte, Séverine; Morgan, James; Margules, Sylvie; Bernal, Savita; Dutat, Michel; Christophe, Anne (2010-01-01). "Phrasal prosody constrains word segmentation in French 16-month-olds". Journal of Portuguese Linguistics. 10 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.5334/jpl.101 . ISSN   1645-4537. PMC   8579710 . PMID   34764830.
  12. 1 2 de Carvalho, Alex; Dautriche, Isabelle; Christophe, Anne (2016-03-01). "Preschoolers use phrasal prosody online to constrain syntactic analysis" (PDF). Developmental Science. 19 (2): 235–250. doi:10.1111/desc.12300. ISSN   1467-7687. PMID   25872796. S2CID   1133032.
  13. ↑ Christophe, Anne; Dupoux, Emmanuel (1996). "Bootstrapping lexical acquisition: The role of prosodic structure". The Linguistic Review. 13 (3–4): 383–412. doi:10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.383. S2CID   10106372.
  14. 1 2 3 Mattys, Sven L.; Jusczyk, Peter W. (2001). "Do Infants Segment Words or Recurring Contiguous Patterns". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 27 (3): 644–655. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.527.9150 . doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.644. PMID   11424651.
  15. 1 2 3 Ramus, Franck; Nespor, Marina; Mehler, Jacques (1999). "Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal" (PDF). Cognition. 73 (3): 265–292. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00058-x. PMID   10585517. S2CID   54566567.
  16. 1 2 Mazuka, Reiko (2007). "The Rhythm-based Prosodic Bootstrapping Hypothesis of Early Language Acquisition: Does It Work for Learning for All Languages?". Gengo Kenkyu. 132: 1–13.
  17. ↑ Bosch, Laura; Sebastián-Gallés, Núria (1997). "Native-language recognition abilities in 4-month-old infants from monolingual and bilingual environments". Cognition. 65 (1): 33–69. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00040-1. PMID   9455170. S2CID   22346835.
  18. 1 2 Gutman, Ariel; Dautriche, Isabelle; Crabbé, Benoît; Christophe, Anne (2015-07-03). "Bootstrapping the Syntactic Bootstrapper: Probabilistic Labeling of Prosodic Phrases". Language Acquisition. 22 (3): 285–309. doi:10.1080/10489223.2014.971956. ISSN   1048-9223. S2CID   2019137.
  19. 1 2 Pate, John K.; Goldwater, Sharon (2011-01-01). Unsupervised Syntactic Chunking with Acoustic Cues: Computational Models for Prosodic Bootstrapping. CMCL '11. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 20–29. ISBN   9781932432954.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  20. ↑ Jusczyk, Peter W. (1997-01-10). The Discovery of Spoken Language. A Bradford Book. ISBN   9780262100588.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.