Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Input, Evidence, and Exposure in Language Acquisition: Studies in honour of Susanne E. Carroll
Edited by Lindsay Hracs
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 69] 2024
► pp. 191–224

Chapter 8
First exposure to Russian word forms by adult English speakers

Disentangling language‑specific and language‑universal factors

| Newcastle University
| Newcastle University
| Newcastle University
How language learners segment (recognise and store words) in the speech stream has typically been explored with children (Jusczyk 1997). Researchers have only recently begun to examine how adults segment an unfamiliar natural language after first exposure without instruction (Gullberg et al. 2010; Gullberg et al. 2012; Carroll 2012, 2013, 2014; Shoemaker & Rast 2013). We report on a study of how 28 English-speaking adults begin to segment words after hearing them in fluent Russian during four sessions. The results showed that segmentation improved significantly over time. Segmentation patterns reflected the influence of English phonotactics and sensitivity to weak-strong stress. We conclude that beyond native language bias, adults deploy the segmentation mechanisms similar to those children use.
Keywords: segmentation, first exposure, phonotactics, prosody, implicit learning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Babies and the speech stream
    • 2.2L2 learners and the speech stream
    • 2.3First exposure studies
  • 3.Research questions
    • 3.1Russian
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Design
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Stimuli
      • 4.3.1Target stimuli
      • 4.3.2Generalizable distractors
      • 4.3.3Non-generalizable distractors
    • 4.4Input phase
    • 4.5Tasks
      • 4.5.1Word recognition task
      • 4.5.2Forced-choice task
      • 4.5.3Shared words identification task
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Shared words identification task
    • 5.2Participants increasing ability to detect words
    • 5.3Accuracy in detecting Russian/English phonotactics vs. Russian-only
    • 5.4Accuracy in strong-weak vs. weak-strong stressed Russian words
    • 5.5Participants preference for disyllabic over monosyllabic words
    • 5.6Participants generalization of phonotactic properties
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Session
    • 6.2Phonotactics
    • 6.3Stress
    • 6.4Length of syllables within a word
    • 6.5Generalization
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (82)
References
Alderete, J. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts.
Altenberg, E. P. 2005. The perception of word boundaries. Second Language Research 21(4): 325–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, E. P. & Cairns, H. S. 1983. The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(2): 174–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archibald, J. 1992. Transfer of L1 parameter settings: Some empirical evidence from Polish metrics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37(3): 301–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Language Learnability and L2 Phonology: The Acquisition of Metrical Parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. A formal model of learning L2 prosodic phonology. Second Language Research 10(3): 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. 2019. Statistical learning, implicit learning, and first language acquisition: A critical evaluation of two developmental predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science 11(3): 504–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R. & Newport, E. L. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9(4): 321–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azzopardi, P. & Cowey, A. 1998. Visual pattern and motion detection in a hemianopic subject. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Suppl. 14.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. 2007. Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. 2015. Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. (R Package Version 1.1–8). <[URL]>
Broselow, E. & Finer, D. 1991. Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 7(1): 35–59.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. 1992. On cognates. Second Language Research 8(2): 93–119.Google Scholar
1999. Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research 15(4): 337–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. First exposure learners make use of top-down lexical knowledge when learning words. In Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, K. Braunmüller, C. Gabriel & B. Hänel-Faulhaber (eds), 23–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Introduction to the special issue: Aspects of word learning on first exposure to a second language. Second Language Research 29(2): 131–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Processing ‘words’ in early-stage SLA: A comparison of first exposure and low proficiency learners. In First Exposure to a Second Language: Learners’ Initial Input Processing, ZH. Han & R. Rast (eds), 107–138. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crosswhite, K. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, K., Alderete, J., Beasley, V. & Markman, V. 2003. Morphological effects on default stress placement in novel Russian words. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, G. G. Tsujimura (ed.), 151–164. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. 1990. Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives, G. T. Altmann (ed.), 105–121. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994. Segmentation problems, rhythmic solutions. Lingua 92: 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Butterfield, S. 1992. Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language 31(2): 218–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Carter, D. M. 1987. The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language 2(3–4): 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Norris, D. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology 14(1): 113–121.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H., Di Betta, A. M., Macdonald, M. J. & Gaskell, M. G. 2009. Learning and consolidation of novel spoken words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(4): 803–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J-Y. & Segui, J. 1989. List structure, monotony, and levels of processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(3): 245–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, R. Ellis, S. Loewen, R. Erlam, J. Philp & H. Reinders (eds), 3–26. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D. & Wessels, M. I. 1993. Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 54(3): 287–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomez, R. 2002. Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science 13(5): 431–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, D. S. & Swets, J. A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Vol. 1. New York NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., Clark, J. J., Harada, T. & Wayland, R. 2003. Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language & Speech 46(4): 403–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. & Indefrey, P. 2003. Language Background Questionnaire. Developed in The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing. Nijmegen, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. <[URL]> (7 July 2019).
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L. & Dimroth, C. 2012. What word-level knowledge can adult learners acquire after minimal exposure to a new language? International Review of Applied Linguistics 50(4): 239–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., Dimroth, C., Veroude, K. & Indefrey, P. 2010. Adult language learning after minimal exposure to an unknown natural language. Language Learning 60(s2): 5–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. 1987. An Essay on Stress Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2013. Incidental learning in second language acquisition. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, C. A. Chapelle (ed.), 2632–2640. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 434–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. K. & Jusczyk, P. W. 2001. Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language 44(4): 548–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. 1997. The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J. I., Svenkerud, V. Y. & Jusczyk, A. M. 1993. Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language 32(3): 402–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Hohne, E. A. & Bauman, A. 1999. Infants’ sensitivity to allophonic cues. Perception & Psychophysics 61(8): 1465–1476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M. & Newsome, M. 1999. The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology 39(3–4): 159–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1995. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: The MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1979. Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2(1): 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. H. & Bock, J. K. 1988. Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14(3): 389–403.Google Scholar
Kirk, N. W., Scott-Brown, K. C. & Kempe, V. 2013. How well can listeners distinguish dialects and unfamiliar languages? Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of The Psychonomic Society. Toronto, Canada. DOI logo
Li, D. & Cowan, N. 2014. Auditory Memory. In Encyclopaedia of Computational Neuroscience, D. Jaeger & R. Jung (eds), 236–238. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, R. 2016. First Exposure to Mandarin in Newcastle: Does Ambient Language Input Matter? MA thesis, Newcastle University.
Linzen, T. & Gallagher, G. 2017. Rapid generalization in phonotactic learning. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 8(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makowski, D. 2018. Psycho. (R Package Version 0.3.4). <[URL]>
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D. & Theeuwes, J. 2012. OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behaviour Research Methods 44(2): 314–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S. J. & Jusczyk, P. W. 2001. Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants. Cognition 78(2): 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, J. M. 1998. Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language 39(1): 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melvold, J. L. 1990. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F. & Marsden, E. 2019. Second Language Learning Theories. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1999. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007. Processability theory. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds), 137–154. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]>
Rast, R. 2008. Foreign Language Input: Initial Processing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The role of linguistic input in the first hours of adult language learning. Language Learning 60(2): 64–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rast, R. & Dommergues, J-Y. 2003. Towards a characterisation of saliency on first exposure to a second language. EUROSLA Yearbook 3: 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. 2015. Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition 18(2): 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294): 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35(4): 606–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Eubank, L. 1996. What is the ‘L2 initial state’? Second Language Research 12(1): 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Language Sound Structure, M. Aronoff & R. T. Oehfle (eds), 107–136. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sereno, J. A. 1986. Stress pattern differentiation of form class in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79: S36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, E. & Rast, R. 2013. Extracting words from the speech stream at first exposure. Second Language Research 29(2): 165–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singmann, H., Bolker, B. & Westfall, J. 2015. Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. R Package, Version 0.14–2. <[URL]>
Skirgård, H., Roberts, S. & Yencken, L. 2017. Why are some languages confused for others? Investigating data from the Great Language Game. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0165934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanislaw, H. & Todorov, N. 1999. Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 31(1): 137–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turk, A., Jusczyk, P. W. & Gerken, L. 1995. Do English-learning infants use syllable weight to determine stress? Language and Speech 38(2): 143–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. 1994. The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research 12(2): 140–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. The initial state in the L2 acquisition of phrase structure. In The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono & W. O’Neil (eds), 17–34. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2011. The Acquisition of German Introducing Organic Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. 2000. The role of phonotactics in the segmentation of native and non-native continuous speech. In Proceedings of SWAP, Workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes, A. Cutler, M. McQueen & R. Zondervan (eds), 143–146. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Weber, A. & Cutler, A. 2006. First-language phonotactics in second-language listening. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(1): 597–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, L. & Givón, T. 1997. Benefits and drawbacks of controlled laboratory studies of second language acquisition: The Keck second language learning project. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(2): 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. 1977. Grammatičeskij Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka (Russian Grammatical Dictionary). Moscow: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
1985. Ot Praslavjanskoj Akcentuacii k Russkoj [From Old Russian to Modern Russian Accentuation]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar