Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T03:17:58.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving referential ambiguity across ambiguous situations in young foreign language learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2016

CHIEH-FANG HU
CHIEH-FANG HU*
Affiliation:
University of Taipei
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Chieh-Fang Hu, Department of English Instruction, University of Taipei, Taipei, Republic of China. E-mail: chfu@utaipei.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First language learners can track word-referent co-occurrence information across situations and evaluate co-occurrence probabilities across situations to determine the best-of-fit mappings. However, cross-situational word learning can be difficult to foreign language learners, because in addition to aggregating information across situations, they have to build robust representations for foreign-sounding words. In Experiment 1, third-grade Mandarin-speaking children learned four English word-referent pairs in two conditions, varying in within-trial ambiguity. In one condition, information about word-referent association was determinable across trials but not within a trial. In the other, word-referent association within a trial was inferable. In Experiment 2, participants learned words in a condition where referential ambiguity across trials, though not within a trial, was reduced by successive presentation of certain word-referent pairs. The results revealed that participants learned more word-referent pairs than expected by chance. Reducing ambiguity within a trial facilitated word mapping and word retention (Experiment 1), but reducing ambiguity across trials did not (Experiment 2). Across two experiments, word mapping and retention performance was associated with phonological awareness, whether measured in children's first language or a foreign language, but not with digit span, suggesting that success in cross-situational word learning in a foreign language rests on specification of word forms.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 633 - 656
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Au, T., & Glusman, M. (1990). The principle of mutual exclusivity in word learning: To honor or not to honor. Child Development, 61, 1474–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, D. W. (2008). Psychology of language (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Hao, M., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2004). Phonological awareness of bilingual and monolingual Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 142–151.Google Scholar
Cheung, H., Chen, H. C., Lai, C. Y., Wong, O. C., & Hills, M. (2001). The development of phonological awareness: Effects of spoken language experience and orthography. Cognition, 81, 227–241.Google Scholar
Cunillera, T., Laine, M., Càmara, E., & Rodríguez-Fornells, A. (2010). Bridging the gap between speech segmentation and word-to-world mappings: Evidence from an audiovisual statistical learning task. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 295–305.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., & Tell, D. (2005). Monolingual and bilingual children's use of mutual exclusivity in the naming of whole objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 25–45.Google Scholar
de Jong, P. F., Seveke, M. J., & van Veen, M. (2000). Phonological sensitivity and the acquisition of new words in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 275–301.Google Scholar
de Marchena, A., Eigsti, I., Worek, A., Ono, K., & Snedeker, J. (2011). Mutual exclusivity in autism spectrum disorders: Testing the pragmatic hypothesis. Cognition, 119, 96–113.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira, F. Jr. (2009). Constructional learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437–445.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., Mulak, K. E., & Vlach, H. A. (2015). Cross-situational learning of minimal word pairs. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H. (2015). Developmental changes in cross-situational word learning: The inverse effect of initial accuracy. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fernald, A. (2013). Social and discourse contributions to the determination of reference in cross-situational word learning. Language Learning and Development, 9, 1–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bailey, L., & Wenger, N. (1992). Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn new nouns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 99–108.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for lexical principles. Journal of Child Language, 21, 125–155.Google Scholar
Horst, J. S., Scott, E. J., & Pollard, J. A. (2010). The role of competition in word learning via referent selection. Developmental Science, 13, 706–713.Google Scholar
Hu, C. F. (2012). Fast-mapping and deliberate word-learning by EFL children. Modern Language Journal, 96, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, C. F. (2013). Predictors of reading in children with Chinese as a first Language: A developmental and cross-linguistic perspective. Reading and Writing, 26, 163–187.Google Scholar
Hu, C. F. (2014). Extracting phonological patterns for L2 word learning: The effect of poor L1 phonological awareness. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 569–585.Google Scholar
Hu, C. F., & Schuele, C. M. (2005). Learning nonnative names: The effect of poor native phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 343–362.Google Scholar
Kachergis, G., Yu, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2009). Temporal contiguity in cross-situational statistical learning. In Taatgen, N., Van Rijn, H., Nerbonne, J., & Schomaker, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1704–1709). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kachergis, G., Yu, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2013). Actively learning object names across ambiguous situations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 200–213.Google Scholar
Kan, P., & Kohnert, K. (2008). Fast mapping by bilingual preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 35, 495–514.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. A. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157.Google Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., Chow, B. Y., Chow, C. L., & Choi, L. (2006). Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2). Reading and Writing, 19, 695–716.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2012). Comparing the effect of repetitive and interleaved input on English as foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 1–24.Google Scholar
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 9014–9019.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. E., & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(3–4, Serial No. 220), 1–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children's phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.Google Scholar
Newman, E. H., Tardif, T., Huang, J., & Shu, H. (2011). Phonemes matter: The role of phoneme-level awareness in emergent Chinese readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 242–259.Google Scholar
Palladino, P., & Ferrari, M. (2008). Phonological sensitivity and memory in children with a foreign language learning difficulty. Memory, 16, 604–625.Google Scholar
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y., & Wong, P. C. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472.Google Scholar
Scott, R. M., & Fisher, C. (2012). 2.5-year-olds use cross-situational consistency to learn verbs under referential ambiguity. Cognition, 122, 163–180.Google Scholar
Smith, K., Smith, A. D. M., & Blythe, R. A. (2011). Cross-situational learning: An experimental study of word-learning mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 35, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106, 1558–1568.Google Scholar
Snowling, M., Chiat, S., & Hulme, C. (1991). Words, nonwords, and phonological processes: Some comments on Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, and Baddeley. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 369–373.Google Scholar
Suanda, S. H., Mugwanya, N., & Namy, L. L. (2014). Cross-situational statistical word learning in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 395–411.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Medina, T. N., Hafri, A., & Gleitman, L. R. (2013). Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 126–156.Google Scholar
Vlach, H. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2013). Memory constraints on infants’ cross-situational statistical learning. Cognition, 127, 375–382.Google Scholar
Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2010). Desirable difficulties in cross-situational word learning. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2470–2475). Portland, OR: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Retrieval dynamics and retention in cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vouloumanos, A. (2008). Fine-grained sensitivity to statistical information in adult word learning. Cognition, 107, 729–742.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, K. M. & Mazzitelli, K. (2003). The effect of “missing” information on children's retention of fast-mapped labels. Journal of Child Language, 30, 47–73.Google Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science, 18, 414–420.Google Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2011). What you learn is what you see: Using eye movements to study infant cross-situational word learning. Developmental Science, 14, 165–180.Google Scholar
Yurovsky, D., Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2013). Competitive processes in cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Science, 37, 891–921.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., & Blomert, L. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading a cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551–559.Google Scholar