Word Segmentation by 8-Month-Olds: When Speech Cues Count More Than Statistics

By Elizabeth K. Johnson, Peter W. Jusczyk. 2001

673 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Speech segmentation by statistical learning depends on attention. (2005, background): “At 7 months of age stress seems to be more prevalent than statistics, whereas at 9 months statistics dominates over stress (Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Thiessen & Saffran, 2003).”
The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants (2003, background): “5 months, infants are sensitive to the prosodic correlates of clauses (Jusczyk, 1997), and by 6months, they are capable of using prosodic information regarding clausal units in their processing of continuous infant-directed speech (Nazzi et al., 2000). At 7.5 months, infants begin to use prosodic in”
Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access II. Infant data (2004, background): “Lexical stress appears to be a powerful cue to word boundaries in English: for instance, both SW patterns and coarticulatory cues have been shown to override distributional cues ( Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; though Thiessen & Saffran, 2003; observed that distributional cues overrode stress patterns in”
Indeterminacy in language acquisition: the role of child directed speech and joint attention (2004, background): “Similarly, Johnson and Jusczyk (2001) demonstrated that speech cues (stress and coarticulation) carry more weight that statistical cues for 8-month-old infants in a Saffran-like task.”
To belief or not belief: Children’s theory of mind (2014, background): “…2001; Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996), can parse speech into linguistically relevant units, identify grammatical and non-grammatical items and match words to objects (Gogate & Bahrick, 1998; Gómez & Gerken, 1999; Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Mattys & Jusczyk, 2001; Morrongiello, Lasenby, & Lee, 2003).”
On the Learning of Arbitrary Phonological Rules (2005, background): “In fact, much recent work suggests that infantshavebothphonemicandsubphonemicawareness fromquiteearly in life (Johnson, 2003) and that this information works most often in combination with statistical and suprasegmental cues (Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Thiessen & Saffran, 2003).”
Infant-Directed Speech Facilitates Word Segmentation. (2005, background): “In this experiment, infants heard each word only 12 times (in Experiment 1) or 24 times (in Experiment 2). Based on Saffran et al.’s results, and other experiments involving similar amounts of exposure to monotonic speech (e.g., Aslin et al., 1998; Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001 ), we expect that infants ”
Can prosody be used to discover hierarchical structure in continuous speech (2012, methodology): “Johnson and Jusczyk (2001) used the Head-Turn Preference Procedure to investigate the interaction of prosody and TPs by familiarizing 8-month-old English-learning infants with sequences of syllables that contained TP cues, as well as word-level speech cues (word stress and coarticulation) signaling…”
PRIMIR: A Developmental Framework of Infant Speech Processing (2005, background): “To ascertain whether properties such as coarticulation and stress could override the raw statistical information, Johnson and Jusczyk (2001) pitted these cues against each other.”
A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: exploring the effects of context. (2009, neutral): “…(Mattys et al., 1999), allophonic variation (Jusczyk et al., 1999a), metrical (stress) patterns (Morgan et al., 1995; Jusczyk et al., 1999b), effects of coarticulation (Johnson and Jusczyk, 2001), and statistical regularities in the sequences of syllables found in speech (Saffran et al., 1996a).”
Recognition of Amodal Language Identity Emerges in Infancy (2013, background): “It gradually enables infants to discover nativelanguage segmental, suprasegmental, and lexical features (Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Jusczyk et al., 1993, 1994; Saffran et al., 1996; Swingley, 2005; Vihman et al., 2004) and gradually leads to an improvement in multisensory perceptual skills…”
Phonology impacts segmentation in online speech processing (2005, neutral): “Johnson and Jusczyk (2001) found that in the presence of speech cues conflicting with distributional cues for word boundary assignment, the former were preferred by 8-month-olds in segmenting an artificial stream of sounds.”
The surprising power of statistical learning: When fragment knowledge leads to false memories of unheard words (2009, background): “In fact, some prosodic cues such as stress seem to be used for segmentation only by relatively old infants (e.g., Thiessen & Saffran, 2003, but see, e.g., Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001).”