Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep-Oct;29(5):750-770.
doi: 10.1111/infa.12593. Epub 2024 May 4.

Prosody outweighs statistics in 6-month-old German-learning infants' speech segmentation

Affiliations

Prosody outweighs statistics in 6-month-old German-learning infants' speech segmentation

Mireia Marimon et al. Infancy. 2024 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

It is well established that infants use various cues to find words within fluent speech from about 7 to 8 months of age. Research suggests that two main mechanisms support infants' speech segmentation: prosodic cues like the word stress patterns, and distributional cues like transitional probabilities (TPs). We tested 6-month-old German-learning infants' use of prosodic and statistical cues for speech segmentation in three experiments. In Experiment 1, infants were familiarized with an artificial language string where TPs signaled either word boundaries or iambic words-a stress pattern that is disfavored in German. Experiment 2 was a control and only the test phase was presented. In Experiment 3, prosodic cues were absent in the string and only TPs signaled word boundaries. All experiments included the same conditions at test: disyllabic words with high TPs in the string, words with low TPs and words with non-co-occurring syllables. Results showed that infants relied more strongly on prosodic cues than on TPs for word segmentation. Notably, no segmentation evidence emerged when prosodic cues were absent in the string. This finding underlines early impacts of language-specific structural properties on segmentation mechanisms.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Abboub, N., Boll‐Avetisyan, N., Bhatara, A., Höhle, B., & Nazzi, T. (2016). An exploration of rhythmic grouping of speech sequences by French‐ and German‐learning infants. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00292
    1. Abboub, N., Nazzi, T., & Gervain, J. (2016). Prosodic grouping at birth. Brain and Language, 162, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.002
    1. Aslin, R., Saffran, J., & Newport, E. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8‐month‐old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9280.00063
    1. Bhatara, A., Boll‐Avetisyan, N., Unger, A., Nazzi, T., & Höhle, B. (2013). Native language affects rhythmic grouping of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 3828–3843. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4823848
    1. Bion, R., Benavides‐Varela, S., & Nespor, M. (2011). Acoustic markers of prominence influence infants’ and adults’ segmentation of speech sequences. Language and Speech, 54(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910388018

LinkOut - more resources