Cover not available
Part of
Child Bilingualism and Second Language Learning: Multidisciplinary perspectives
Edited by Fangfang Li, Karen E. Pollock and Robbin Gibb
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 10] 2020
► pp. 65–86

Chapter 5
Using a novel sorting game to explore the role of phonotactic probability and linguistic environment in nonword processing by Spanish-English bilingual children

| University of South Florida
| Appalachian State University
Bilingual children process distinct phonotactics of two languages in a mixed linguistic environment. The Unified Competition Model (MacWhinney, 2005), which posits language processing via weighing informational cues, would predict that bilingual children rely more on phonotactic probability than linguistic environment when organizing new words into languages. This chapter presents a study testing this hypothesis. Using nonwords of differing phonotactic probabilities, bilingual children were tested in predominantly Spanish or English contexts and asked to classify nonwords as English or Spanish. Data analyzed using a mixed effects generalized linear model indicated that bilingual children rely on phonotactic probabilities, not linguistic environment, to encode language membership supporting predictions of the Unified Competition Model and extending its explanatory function to bilingual language membership encoding.
Article outline
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Stimulus development
    • Computation of phonotactic probability
    • Statistical characteristics of the stimuli
    • Recording and synthesis
    • Wordlikeness testing
    • Procedures
    • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • Limitations and future directions
    • Practical applications
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 1 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.10.05bet
References (42)
References
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2018, January 9). The number of bilingual kids in America continues to rise. Retrieved from <[URL]> (10 June, 2020).
Bartolotti, J., & Marian, V. (2012). Language learning and control in monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1129–1147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhiney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–76). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenik, D. (2011). Praat. Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.2.3.5) [software]. Retrieved from <[URL]> (10 June, 2020).
Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy, 2(1), 29–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brea-Spahn, M. R. (2009). Spanish-specific patterns and nonword repetition performance in English language learners. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations: <[URL]> (10 June, 2020).
Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 403–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2009). Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: Infants’ language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science, 12(5), 815–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11(2), 282–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Proceedings of the third meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics special interest group in computational phonology (pp. 49–56). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Comeau, L., Genesee, F., & Lapaquette, L. (2003). The modeling hypothesis and child bilingual codemixing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(2), 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrler, D. J., & McGhee, R. L. (2008). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Primary. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (2011). MouseTracker (Version 2.67) [software]. Retrieved from <[URL]> (10 June, 2020).
Frisch, S. A., Large, N. R., Zawaydeh, B. & Pisoni, D. B. (2001). Emergent phonotacticgeneralizations of English and Arabic. Typological Studies in Language, 45, 159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S. A., & Brea-Spahn, M. R. (2010). Metalinguistic judgments of phonotactics by monolinguals and bilinguals. Laboratory Phonology, 1, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S. A., Large, N. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 481–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, H., Takahashi, T., Morise, M., & Banno, H. (2009). Development of exploratory research tools based on TANDEM_STRAIGHT. In Proceedings of Annual Summit and Conference of the Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association (pp. 111–120). Sapporo, Japan: Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association.Google Scholar
Li, P., & Farkaš, I. (2002). A self-organizing connectionist model of bilingual processing. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 59–88). Amsterdam: North Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Farkaš, I., & MacWhinney, B. (2004). Early lexical acquisition in a self-organizing neural network. Neural Networks, 17, 1345–1362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P. & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Competition model. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2002). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Extending the competition model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (211–227). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Martin-Rhee, M. M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitory control in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 81–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Forrest Cataldi, E., & Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from <[URL]> (20 July, 2018).
Messer, M. H., Leseman, P. P. M., Boom, J., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). Phonotactic probability effect in nonword recall and its relationship with vocabulary in monolingual and bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 306–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10). Bloomington, IN: Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2001). Do bilingual two-year-olds have separate phonological systems? International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(1), 19–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RStudio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Retrieved from <[URL]> (10 June, 2020).
Saffran, J. R. (2001). Words in a sea of sounds: The output of infant statistical learning. Cognition, 81, 149–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Bosch, L. (2002). Building phonotactic knowledge in bilinguals: Role of early exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 974–989.Google Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2013). The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 304–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1321–1337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63(4), 1012–1020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E.H., & Secord, W.A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed.). Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Windsor, J., Kohnert, K., Lobitz, K. F., & Pham, G. T. (2010). Cross-language nonword repetition by monolingual and bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 298–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar