Language Flashcards

Question

Context effects (speech recognition)

Answer 1

Important for noisy environments * Warren (2008) --\> phoneme restoration effect * if cough sound over one phoneme, still hear word intact * Pollack & Pickett (1964) --\> spoken word recognition decreases significantly if presented out of context + alone * Tyler (1984) --\> context effect in gating * set size decrease happens faster in context * faster recognition

Answer 2

Hickok & Poeppel (2007) - dual-stream model * ventral stream --\> maps sound to meaning * for comprehension * bilateral activity in Heschl's gyrus, superior+ medial temporal areas * Dorsal stream --\> maps sound to articulation * for more complex input like sentences * left-lateralised, particularly left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area) Gil-da-costa et al., (2006) --\> looked at sound-meaning mapping in evolutionary context * rhesus macaques - exchange meaningful calls - stimulates comparable activity to humans * PET --\> activity in homologs of human language areas for salient vs non-salient stimuli Rillig et al., (2008) * left inferior frontal gyrus activation for complex input (sentences) --\> dorsal stream * temporal + frontal connection is unique to humans * for grammatical + syntactic processes * temporal lobe projection of human arcuate fasiculus is absent/smaller in non-human primates * may be relevant for language evolution

Answer 3

Sentences = not stored, need rapid mechanisms for parsing + extracting information Syntactic rules - govern how words can be combined in a language (indepentend of meaning) --\> abstract enough for ALL grammatically correct sequences BUT still rule out illegal grammar 4 main theories: 1. Garden-Path model (Frazier & Rayner, 1982) --\> initial parsing is purely syntactic, meaning informs later 2. Constraint-based theories (MacDonald et al., 1994) --\> initial interpretation depends on all available sources of information 3. Unrestricted race model (Van Gompel et al., 2000) - all sources of info used to identify a syntactic structure 4. 'Good enough' representations (Ferreiva et al., 2002) --\> type of information used depends on the task - has to be good enough for context (1+2 are the main ones)

Answer 4

1. syntactic principles 2. statistical regularities 3. grammatical categories 4. prosodic cues 5. semantic information 6. world knowledge

Answer 5

Frazier (1987) * late closure principle --\> new items attached to the phrase/clause most recently processed * optimises sentence comprehension * decreases cognitive demand * decreases STM requirements * Minimal attachment --\> links each incoming word to existing structure using simplest syntactic structure consistent with the input * parsimony

Answer 6

Word order: english = SVO; japanese = SOV Slobin (1966) * presented participants with active/passive sentences, either reversible or irriversible (S+O swappable) * RT matching sentence to pictures decreased for all active - because more fequently encountered

Answer 7

* individual words provide cues for sentence interpretation * e.g. articles, prepositions, pronouns * and = new phase node * that/which = embedded sentence

Answer 8

Relative emphasis of different parts of the sentence Beach (1991) - sentence completion task --\> 2 types of sentence with same verb ('argued'): * Direct object - forcefully short vowel + stable pitch contour * Complement - long vowel + fall-rise pitch * if DO verb --\> completed sentence in a way that had DO characteristics * same result no matter how long the segment was * prosodic cues define elements of the sentence and how they sit together

Answer 9

Meaning of individual elements Trueswell et al., (1994) --\> 2 sentences, one word changes * reaction time longer (slower) if have to read 2 animate things in same sentence - creates more of a conflict in putting the sentence together

Answer 10

Effect of violation of world knowledge are rapid and parallel to those for semantic violations Hagoort et al., (2004): ERP + fMRI - 3 sentences, 1 true, 1 world violation, 1 semantic violation * world knowledge violation + semantic violation produce response at the same time (N400) * semantic + world knowledge are equally fast + influence sentence processing in parallel

Answer 11

Vigneau et al., (2011) - meta-analysis of 128 studies of syntactic processing * extended frontotemporal processing netword (mainly on L) * frontotemporal white matter connections (L) --\> dorsal (arcuate fasiculus) + ventral (extreme capsule) Rolheiser et al., (2011) - white matter tracks + syntactic comprehension * worse performance with less white matter density (patients with white matter damage)

Answer 12

Friederici, 2011 * functional distinction between dorsal + ventral pathways in L hemisphere Friederici & Gierhan, 2013 (looking at functional brain imaging): * **ventral pathway** (aSTG) for simple syntax * putting elements together * the uncinate fascile and the inferior fronto-occipital fascile subserve semantic and basic syntactic processes * the FC and the TC are connected via at least two pathways * the uncinate fascile (UF) * extreme capsule fiber system (ECFS) * supporting local phrase structure building * [also semantic processing] * **dorsal pathway** (pSTG) for complex syntax * dependencies/embedding * complex computations * one pathway connects the temporal cortex and premotor cortex --\> for speech repetition, * another pathway connects the temporal cortex and posterior Broca’s area --\> for complex syntactic processes * the tract from the STG to Broca’s area is relevant for complex syntactic processes * [also auditory --\> motor mapping]

Answer 13

Rillig et al., (2004) - evolutionary expansion of dorsal frontotemporal pathway in humans (L) --\> involved in processing of complex sentences Fitch & Hausel (2004) - non-human primates aren't capable of mastering complex syntactic combinations * both humans + monkeys can spot simple sequence violations (look/no-look measure) * only humans can spot complex sequence violations

Answer 14

COSTS (historically): * Saer (1924) - in rural context, IQ of bilinguals = 86 vs 96 of monolinguals * BUT: other factors involved * Jesperson (1922) - brain effort required for bilingualism --\> reduces ability to learn other things BENEFITS: * Peal & Lambert (1962) - positive correlation between bilingualism and intelligence when other factors controlled * EF --\> 'bilingual advantage' * metalinguistic knowledge: * Ianco-Worrall (1972) - can you call a dog 'cow' and a cow 'dog' if you were creating a language * BL (English-Afrikaans) more likely to say yes * by 7-9yrs - 0.59 BL (4-6yrs = .38) * English ML = 0.08 (4-6yrs), 0.38 (7-9yrs) COSTS: * Disadvantage in receptive vocabulary in preschool + early school years * given word + have to find picture it relates to * bilinguals have 2 possible labels - so relative usage of each is less * Tip-of-the-tongue --\> temporary inability to produce a known name or word * Gollan et al., (2005) - TOT higher for bilinguals on objects (2 labels) but no difference on famous or personal names

Answer 15

Indefrey (2006) - meta-analysis --\> only 2/5 showed greater activation for L2 than L1 De Bleser et al (2003) - PET: dutch ML vs Dutch-French BL - latte acquisition (10yrs) * cognates (same meaning similar sound in L1+L2) * L2 has same activation as L1 * noncognates * greater activation in frontal regions due to increased difficulty + increased cognitive capacity required Rodriguez-Fornells et al (2005) - early acquisition: German, German-Spanish (L2 by 3yrs) * used L2 for work/study * activation pretty much the same in both Indefrey (2006) * chinese (L1) tested 3,6,9 months into a Dutch learning program (L2) * after 6 months of exposure - identical regions in L frontal areas as in native speakers

Answer 16

Kroll & Stewart (1994): * Initial stage: * meaning of L2 word accessed via L1 analogue mediator * lexical links between L2 --\> L1 * L1 concepts * Later stage * link directly from L2 --\> meaning (direct access withough L1 involved) * can translate between L1 + L2 * Final stage (proficient bilinguals) * bidirectional relation between them all Prediction: * in intermediate stage - should be differences in L1--\>2 translation vs L2--\>L1 (semantic effect) * Kroll & Stewart (1994): confirmed with English-Dutch bilinguals: * slower to translate L1--\>L2 than L2--\>L1 * due to being mediated by meaning

Answer 17

Green (1998) - suppression hypothesis --\> both L1 + L2 constantly competing for access, have to suppress one Spivey & Marian (1999) - presented with grid, have to follow instructions (Russian-English BLs) * distractor present (sounds like a russian word --\> phonological overlap) * distractor shows some fixation even if instruction in english * process in parallel - simultaneously Meuter & Allport (1999) - code-switching paradigm * digit colour indicates the language to name in * RT in switching trials is higher (as expected) * RT for L2 is higher than L1 * slower to switch from L2 --\> L1 than L1 --\> L2 (becuase better at suppressing L2) * takes a lot of effort to suppress L1 in L2 trials so there is a spill-over effect (suppression hypothesis)

Answer 18

Suggestion that EF of BL is better due to constant inhibition of non-target language * Bialystok et al., (2004) - Simon task - overcoming conflicting cues to make a decision * interference greater for ML * reduced Simon effect + age effect for BL * reduced WM cost for BL * better prepared to cope with conflicting info? * Craik et al., (2010) - Bilingual patients with Alzhiemers * diagnosed 4.3yrs later * onset of symptoms 5.1yrs later than ML * languagr experience may contribute to cognitive reserve - compensating for effects of neuropathology

Answer 19

CRITIQUES (Paap et al., 2015;16): * some replication attempts failed * some possible methodological problems (SS, SES, cultural differences, immigrant status) * publication bias (more likely to publish positive) * chicken + egg problem: * BL --\> better EF or * better EF --\> aquiring L2/3/4 Beyond bilingual advantage: * Olguin et al (2019) - learning/using multiple languages is environmental/cognitive demand * brains adapt to environmental demands to maintain/optimise performance * even if behavioural performance the same, maybe use different neural mechanisms for ML vs BL * BL may trigger adaptive reconfiguration of the system - for optimal performance

Answer 20

TYPES: * Beats = coordinated with speech prosody but no relation to meaning of it * simple + repetitive * Pointing = simple conventionalised movements referring to spatial locationrs or to bind objects to them * Symbolic gesture = movement with conventionalised meaning * ok, thumbs up, fingers crossed * Lexical gestures = non-repetitive, change in form * relate to meaning of accompanying speech Iverson & Goldin-Meadow (1998) - congenitally blind people gesture as much as sighted people FUNCTION * communicative + informative * facilitating word production * Morrel-Samuels & Krauss (1992) - onset of gestures: 500ms-1s before words * familiar words = closer gesture asynchrony + briefer - less planning/effort * Rauscher et al., (1996) - gesture effects on speech fluency * fake electrodes to immobilise hands * no gesturing when describing spatial-related content = more disfluency

Answer 21

Breaks/irregularities/utterances not consistent with specific grammatical construction and occur within otherwise fluent speech (~6/100 words) - 'uh'/'er'/'like' Informative * 60-70% of pauses fall at juncture of sentences * disfluencies often at beginning of utterance (planning) Brennan & Schober (2001): move mouse to square indicated in utterance * between word interruptions * move to the *yellow* purple square * affects performance most * mid-word interruption * move to the *yel* purple square * mid-word interruption and filler * move to the *yel uh* purple square * speeds up comprehension * disfluencies can signal speech repair - tell you to pay attention

Answer 22

Temporary, flexible agreements between speaker and listener to view/name objects a certain way Metzing & Brennan (2003): task = locate + move object in grid according to speaker's instructions * speaker names object, gives instruction + keeps that name for the rest of time - listener agrees * NEW speaker: * listener equally fast to detect target if new OR old word used (because no agreement with them) * OLD speaker, NEW word: * confusion and increased RT - because breaking social agreement * Measured by eye movement - time looking at target Garrod & Pickering (2004) --\> speeds up communication * coordinate - keep track of who says what * distributes processing load between interlocuters * maybe relies on simple priming + imitation mechanisms

Answer 23

POSITIVES: * increases signal:noise ratio - raise up to 20dB * Sumby & Pollack (1954) * enhances comprehension of speaker if you see them - especially if complex speech/heavy accent * Reisberg, McLean & Goldfield (1987) Precedes speech: * prelinguistic children link mouth movement to auditory signals * Kuhl & Meltzoff (1982) * macaques have highly deveoped audio-visual integration --\> to support social interaction * make similar eye movements to humans (focus on eye and mouth) * single-cell recordings show cells in auditory cortex respond stronger to integrated signals * Ghazanfar et al (2008)

Answer 24

Neural coupling hypothesis: Hasson et al., (2012) * stimulus-brain coupling --\> to retrieve info about world + guide actions * brain-to-brain coupling --\> coordination among individuals in shared physical/social environment Stephens et al (2010) --\> temporal + spatial coupling of brain activity (speaker + listener in fMRI scanner) * coupling in early auditory areas, superior temporal + inferior parietal gyri, insula + inferior frontal gyri * synchronous speaker-listener coupling in early auditory cortices * predictive anticipatory coupling in frontal lobe (PFC) - activation in listener precedes speaker * level of comprehension correlates with degress of coupling in frontal areas * neural coupling only in successful communication

Answer 25

Wyman, Rakoczy, and Tomasello, 2009 * “No, you can’t eat that. It’s soap!” (Wyman, Rakoczy, and Tomasello, 2009) * Both understand and enforce the norms * One block = soap * Other block = sandwich * Kids get mad at breaking the pretence

Answer 26

* **Phonological bootstrapping** * Use phonotactic or prosodic cues (*vowel length, pauses, loudness*) to help break wall of speech * **Distributional learning** * Track how often certain elements appear * **Statistical learning** * How often certain elements cooccur with other elements * Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996 * 8-month-old infants listened to 2 minute stream of syllables (made-up language – 4 x 3 syllable words) * tibudogolatudaropipabikutibudodaropigolatudaropi tibudopabikudaropitibudopabikugolatu * Then test words presented (2 types) * Transitional probabilities: (between 1^st + 2^nd and 2^nd + 3^rd syllables) * Test “words” from made-up language (pabiku, tibudo) = 1 * Only ever occurred together * Test “non-words” not from language (tudaro, pigola) = 0.33 * From final syllable of one word + first 2 of another word * String of syllables only occurred if 1^st word followed by 2^nd word * During test phase – **infants listened to non-words significantly longer** than words  could track **transitional probabilities** + **distinguish** between test words * Infants learn structural properties of input * Powerful learners * Non-linguistic cognitive abilities play important role in language learning * Once they break wall of sound, they can use distributional + statistical learning to analyse frequency + cooccurrence of certain patterns of sound/words/phrases * Phonological bootstrapping to break up sound  then distributional + statistical learning

Answer 27

Eimas et al. 1971 * interested in how people perceive sounds on a continuum (e.g. b  p) * Do this by varying voice onset time (only way they differ) * Sounds were evenly spaced across continuum but there was a noticeable point where b becomes p * For adults voice onset time of +20 is heard as ‘ba’ and +40 is heard as ‘pa’ * +40 - +60 did not have same reaction * Used high amplitude sucking technique to test on infants (1-4 months) * Infants given special dummy to measure sucking rate * Habituated to hearing ‘ba’ first until sucking rate gradually declined * 6 stimuli used with VOT from -20 to +80 --\> showed significant dishabituation in sucking rate (sped up) between +20 and +40 * Conclusion --\> by age of just **1 years old** they perceive sounds categorically in same way as adults * Either /b/ or /p/ - cannot be both Werker and Tees, 1984 * Young infants have categorical perceptions for sounds in other languages too * Used pairs of sounds that sound the same to English adults but in other languages were contrastive phonemes * **Head turn procedure:** Infant rewarded for turning head when sound changed * English infants – declined until adult level * *Tuning in process* --\> when hear native language, infant becomes adept at discriminating sounds in native language * In Japanese – infants born with r/l distinction not important in their language but after 1yr old they can’t tell them apart * *Specialisation* --\> restriction of options Kuhl, Ramírez, Bosseler, Lin and Imada (2014) * MEG to show that the ability to discriminate *native versus non- native* phonetic contrasts that emerges during the first year of life has both acoustic and motor components. * tested English learning infants aged 7+ 11– 12 months, contrasting native English phonemes with native Spanish phonemes (via different voicing for / d/ or / t/ sounds). * MMR showed that the younger infants could discriminate both native and non- native sounds, * showed brain activation in both auditory and motor regions * The MMR also showed that the **older infants had lost the ability to discriminate the non-native speech sounds.** * double dissociation between acoustic and motor neural regions for the older infants (also present in adults) * **For auditory brain areas**  there was greater neural activation for the **native speech** sounds than for the non- native speech sounds * **for motor brain areas**  there was greater neural activation for the **non-native speech** sounds than for the native speech sounds. * Suggested that infants’ increasing *ability to form these speech sounds themselves* could underpin this developmental dissociation

Language Flashcards

(51 cards)