Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part I Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 1 Generative Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 2 Usage-Based Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 3 Sociolinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 4 Psycholinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 5 Neurolinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 6 Computational Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part II Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Child
- Part IV The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Adult
- Part V The Diversity of Bilingual Speakers
- Part VI Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech
- Index
- References
6 - Computational Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
from Part I - Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 November 2024
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part I Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 1 Generative Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 2 Usage-Based Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 3 Sociolinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 4 Psycholinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 5 Neurolinguistic Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- 6 Computational Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part II Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Child
- Part IV The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Adult
- Part V The Diversity of Bilingual Speakers
- Part VI Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech
- Index
- References
Summary
Computational models allow researchers to formulate explicit theories of language acquisition, and to test these theories against natural language corpora. This chapter puts the problem of bilingual phonetic and phonological acquisition in a computational perspective. The main goal of the chapter is to show how computational modeling can be used to address crucial questions regarding bilingual phonetic and phonological acquisition, which would be difficult to address with other experimental methods. The chapter first provides a general introduction to computational modeling, using a simplified model of phonotactic learning as an example to illustrate the main methodological issues. The chapter then gives an overview of recent studies that have begun to address the computational modeling of bilingual phonetic and phonological acquisition, focusing on phonetic and phonological cues for bilingual input separation, bilingual phonology in computational models of speech comprehension, and computational models of L2 speech perception. The chapter concludes by discussing several key challenges in the development of computational models of bilingual phonetic and phonological acquisition.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 126 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Adriaans, F. (2018). Effects of consonantal context on the learnability of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(1), EL20–EL25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adriaans, F. (2020). The effectiveness of phonological cues for bilingual input separation. Paper presented at the 45th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD45). www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2020/10/BUCLD45_Abstracts_at-a-glance_v4.pdf.Google Scholar
Adriaans, F. & Kager, R. (2010). Adding generalization to statistical learning: The induction of phonotactics from continuous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adriaans, F. & Kager, R. (2017). Learning novel phonotactics from exposure to continuous speech. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adriaans, F. & Swingley, D. (2017). Prosodic exaggeration within infant-directed speech: Consequences for vowel learnability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(5), 3070–3078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albright, A. (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology, 26, 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, T. M. & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 775–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations. Psychological Science, 16, 451–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brent, M. R. & Cartwright, T. A. (1996). Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition, 61, 93–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers-Heinlein, K. (2013). Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input to young bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, P., Shillcock, R., Chater, N., & Levy, J. (1997). Bootstrapping word boundaries: A bottom-up corpus-based approach to speech segmentation. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 111–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carbajal, M. J. (2018). Separation and acquisition of two languages in early childhood: A multidisciplinary approach. [Doctoral dissertation, Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres].Google Scholar
Carbajal, M. J., Dawud, A., Thiollière, R., & Dupoux, E. (2016). The “language filter” hypothesis: A feasibility study of language separation in infancy using unsupervised clustering of i-vectors. In Proceedings of the 2016 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob). Cergy-Pontoise, France: IEEE, pp. 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2016.7846818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbajal, M. J., Fér, R., & Dupoux, E. (2016). Modeling language discrimination in infants using i-vector representations. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 889–896. www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/papers/Carbajal_FD_2016_Language_discrimination_i-vectors.ProcCogSci.pdf.Google Scholar
Carnegie Mellon University. (2014). CMU Pronouncing Dictionary, Version 0.7b. www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict.Google Scholar
Curtin, S., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2011). Bilingual beginnings as a lens for theory development: PRIMIR in focus. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daland, R. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2011). Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cognitive Science, 35, 119–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danielson, D. K., Seidl, A., Onishi, K. H., Alamian, G., & Cristia, A. (2014). The acoustic properties of bilingual infant-directed speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(2), EL95–EL101.Google Scholar
De Boer, B. & Kuhl, P. K. (2003). Investigating the role of infant-directed speech with a computer model. Acoustics Research Letters Online, 4, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehak, N., Kenny, P. J., Dehak, R., Dumouchel, P., & Ouellet, P. (2010). Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 19(4), 788–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehak, N., Torres-Carrasquillo, P. A., Reynolds, D., & Dehak, R. (2011). Language recognition via i-vectors and dimensionality reduction. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2011, pp. 857–860. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2011-328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Seyssel, M. & Dupoux, E. (2020). Does bilingual input hurt? A simulation of language discrimination and clustering using i-vectors. In Proceedings of CogSci 2020 – 42nd Annual Virtual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2791–2797. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/cogsci20/papers/0683/0683.pdf.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Dunbar, E., & Idsardi, W. (2013). A single-stage approach to learning phonological categories: Insights from Inuktitut. Cognitive Science, 37, 344–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P. (2005). Linguistic Perception and Second Language Acquisition: Explaining the Attainment of Optimal Phonological Categorization. Utrecht: LOT. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/113_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., Goldwater, S., & Morgan, J. L. (2013). A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review, 120, 751–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddijn, S. & Binnenpoorte, D. (2003). Assessing manually corrected broad phonetic transcriptions in the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 1361–1364. www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_1361.pdf.Google Scholar
Gouskova, M. & Gallagher, G. (2020). Inducing nonlocal constraints from baseline phonotactics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38(1), 77–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. (2004). Speech perception, well-formedness, and the statistics of the lexicon. Papers in Laboratory Phonology vi, 58–74.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochmann, J.-R., Benavides-Varela, S., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2011). Consonants and vowels: Different roles in early language acquisition. Developmental Science, 14(6), 1445–1458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and Language Processing, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, I. & Adriaans, F. (2018). Linguistic constraints on statistical word segmentation: The role of consonants in Arabic and English. Cognitive Science, 42, 494–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keidel, J. L., Zevin, J. D., Kluender, K. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Modeling the role of native language knowledge in perceiving nonnative speech contrasts. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 2221–2224. www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_2221.pdf.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic grammar – A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 884–891. www.colorado.edu/ics/sites/default/files/attached-files/90-05.pdf.Google Scholar
Li, P. & Farkas, I. (2002). A self-organizing connectionist model of bilingual processing. Advances in Psychology, 134, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. & MacWhinney, B. (2002). PatPho: A phonological pattern generator for neural networks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(3), 408–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2014). The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Volume II: The Database, 3rd ed. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J. F., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82, B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurray, B., Aslin, R. N., & Toscano, J. C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: Insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science, 12, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S., eds., Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., et al. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd Release). Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Psychology, pp. 265–270.Google Scholar
Potts, C., Pater, J., Jesney, K., Bhatt, R., & Becker, M. (2010). Harmonic grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology, 27(1), 77–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Tesar, B. (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, R., Pater, J., & Zonneveld, W., eds., Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richtsmeier, P. T. (2011). Word-types, not word-tokens, facilitate extraction of phonotactic sequences by adults. Laboratory Phonology, 2, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, A. & Marian, V. (2013). The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundara, M. & Breiss, C. (2020). Infants are sensitive to phonotactic patterns in their native language at 5-months. Paper presented at the 45th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD45). www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2020/10/BUCLD45_Abstracts_at-a-glance_v4.pdf.Google Scholar
Sundara, M. & Scutellaro, A. (2011). Rhythmic distance between languages affects the development of speech perception in bilingual infants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swingley, D. (2009). Contributions of infant word learning to language development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 3617–3622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, D. & Alarcon, C. (2018). Lexical learning may contribute to phonetic learning in infants: A corpus analysis of maternal Spanish. Cognitive Science, 42(5), 1618–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallabha, G. K., McClelland, J. L., Pons, F., Werker, J. F., & Amano, S. (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 13273–13278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Leussen, J.-W. & Escudero, P. (2015). Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (2000). Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese–English bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 3(3), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar