The Perceptual Acquisition of Phonological Contrasts

By Joe Pater, C. Stager, Janet F. Werker. 2004

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff165bf9c5cfd8f7ff96d9c49f5e9d12eed9143f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts (2008, background): “Studies of first language acquisition have provided evidence that the task of word learning may put demands on processing that obscure knowledge of newly-learned and yet-unstable contrasts (Stager and Werker, 1997; Pater et al., 2004).”
Sub-Segmental Detail in Early Lexical Representations. (2008, methodology): “Bailey and Plunkett (2002) studied one- and two-feature changes, as did Pater, Stager, and Werker (2004), using a different methodology.”
Perceptual beginnings to language acquisition (2018, background): “We have also known for some time that from as early as 4 months old (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982; Patterson & Werker, 1999) and even 2 months old (Patterson & Werker, 2003), infants can match heard with seen phonetic information.”
Lexical and statistical evidence in the acquisition of second language phonemes (2007, background): “1However, in first language acquisition research, it has been shown that infants’ ability to discriminate a contrast does not necessarily mean that they can use the contrast to discriminate words (Stager and Werker, 1997; Pater et al., 2004; see also Swingley, 2003).”
PRIMIR: A Developmental Framework of Infant Speech Processing (2005, background): “That infants of 14 months failed not only on “bih” and “dih,” but also on words that differ in only voicing (“pin” vs. “bin”) or even voicing plus place (“pin” vs. “din”; Pater et al., 2004) may be because the overlap is still nearly complete (see Figure 3).”