JSLHR

Research Article

Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping in Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers Pui Fong Kan,a Neeraja Sadagopan,a Lauren Janich,a and Marixa Andradea

Purpose: This study examines the effects of the levels of speech practice on fast mapping in monolingual and bilingual speakers. Method: Participants were 30 English-speaking monolingual and 30 Spanish–English bilingual young adults. Each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 practice conditions prior to the fast-mapping task: (a) intensive speech practice, (b) moderate speech practice, or (c) no practice. In a fast-mapping experiment, each participant was briefly exposed to novel objects and their corresponding novel words. Participants’ knowledge of the target novel words was assessed immediately after the exposures.

Results: There were significant effects of speech practice on fast mapping for both monolingual and bilingual adults. It is important to note that participants’ language experience also played a role in their fast-mapping performance. Conclusion: The findings suggest that speech practice, interacting with language experience, facilitates the processes for fast mapping.

W

Correspondence to Pui Fong Kan: [email protected] Editor: Rhea Paul Associate Editor: Margarita Kaushanskaya

within external resources (e.g., de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Van Geert, 1991, 1994, 1995). In the context of encountering a new word, learning involves the interaction among the speech, language, and cognition subsystems (cf. Smith, 2006). That there are interactions between the speech and language systems in speech learning has been highlighted in the speech motor learning literature. Recent work has demonstrated that language interacts with articulatory output during speech production and learning. Specifically, phonological complexity (e.g., Sasisekaran, Smith, Sadagopan, & Weber-Fox, 2010; Smith, Sadagopan, Walsh, & Weber-Fox, 2010; Walsh, Smith, & Weber-Fox, 2006), syntactic complexity (Kleinow & Smith, 2006; Maner, Smith, & Grayson, 2000; Sadagopan & Smith, 2008), and language proficiency (Chakraborty, Goffman, & Smith, 2008) have been shown to influence speech output measures. Within the framework of Baddeley’s model of working memory (e.g., Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998), it is suggested that rehearsal mechanisms (overt or covert practice) prevent the decay of phonological representations in short-term memory and facilitate transfer of these representations into long-term storage (Papagno & Vallar, 1992). An interesting question, then, pertains to the influence of word-form rehearsal on fast mapping. In other words, in the light of interactions between the speech and language systems, does the strengthening of word-form representations

Received February 27, 2013 Revision received July 12, 2013 Accepted September 24, 2013 DOI: 10.1044/2013_JSLHR-L-13-0045

Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.

ord learning, starting from early childhood, is an integral part of our daily lives and continues throughout adulthood. Associative theories assume that learning a new word is an ongoing process that involves multiple exposures to the form and meaning of a word (e.g., Capone & McGregor, 2005; Munro, Baker, McGregor, Docking, & Arculi, 2012) and that can be thought of as involving various stages and as operating at multiple levels across language, speech, and cognitive systems. The initial stage of new word learning (called fast mapping) involves mapping of the auditory word form to its referent (e.g., Carey & Bartlett, 1978). The strength of this mapping is incrementally increased over time given repeated exposures and feedback (e.g., Colunga & Smith, 2005; Gray, 2003; Kan & Kohnert, 2012, McGregor, Sheng, & Ball, 2007; Regier, 2005). From the perspective of the dynamic systems theory, learning involves an ongoing complex interaction among internal dynamic subsystems, which function

a

University of Colorado, Boulder

Key Words: bilingual, fast mapping, word learning, speech practice, speech-language interaction

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014 • A American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

929

through practice benefit fast mapping in the initial stages of word learning? In this study, we ask whether and to what extent speech practice (i.e., rehearsing, through repetition, each word form without viewing associated referents) can affect stages of word learning. Furthermore, in the first investigation of this specific question, we seek to ascertain what the specific nature of the interaction is between speech and language within the proposed paradigm of word learning. Does language experience (e.g., monolingual vs. bilingual individuals) play a role in interactions among these internal subsystems? This study can potentially serve to further bridge the gap in our understanding of the relationship between speech and language processes during fast mapping. It can also tell us how this relationship is associated with language experience (i.e., in monolingual vs. in bilingual individuals). The results can shed more light on the complex dynamic interactions between the speech, language, and cognition subsystems (e.g., Smith, 2006).

Speech Practice and Fast Mapping Evidence across studies has shown that after brief exposures to a new word, monolingual as well as bilingual individuals can form and link the phonological and semantic representation of the target word (e.g., Carey & Bartlett, 1978; Kan & Kohnert, 2008, 2012; Markson & Bloom, 1997). Without additional exposures and opportunities to use the words, the learned word representation is subject to rapid decay (e.g., Gathercole, 2006; Kan, 2014; Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012). However, the decaying representation can be retained by a subvocal rehearsal (e.g., Gathercole, 2006; Kaushanskaya & Yoo, 2011; Thorn & Gathercole, 2001). In other words, rehearsing the target word forms can potentially boost the word representations and, thus, facilitate fast mapping. Several researchers, who have explored the relationships between word exposures and phonological word-form learning, have argued that word-form learning occurs with auditory/visual exposure in the absence of active word-form practice/repetition (e.g., Page & Norris, 2009; Szmalec, Duyck, Vandierendonck, Mata, & Page, 2009). For example, in a word-form learning experiment, Szmalec et al. (2009) visually presented sequences of nine nonsense syllables to young adults, and the participants performed better in the condition of repeated sequence of syllables (i.e., repeated 12 times) than in the control condition. In the subsequent experiment, Szmalec et al. tested the same participants by using an auditory lexical decision task, which included the nonwords used in the first experiment. Participants were slower in rejecting the nonwords that were used in the previous experiment, suggesting that long-term phonological representations have been developed during the learning conditions. However, other research suggests that learning paradigms that require the learner to verbally produce the word form appear to be more effective than paradigms in which the learner is asked simply to listen to the word form without producing it. For example, in a series of

within-subject design experiments, MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary, and Ozubko (2010) found that word recognition was facilitated by the prior experience of reading the target words aloud. MacLeod et al. (2010) suggested that word production—compared with auditory exposure only—offers the added advantage of repeated retrieval of the “processing record” that was established in memory during prior production of that word. This suggestion is consistent with motor learning literature that has shown that repetition and practice of a novel motor sequence is associated with strengthened motor “programs” (Schmidt & Lee, 2005). Further, that speech motor parameters improve with practice has been established in healthy adults (Sadagopan, & Smith, 2013; Sasisekaran et al., 2010) and adults who stutter (Smith et al., 2010). If word-form practice does indeed strengthen both the processing and the output programs, then the argument can be made that additional exposure in the form of the repetition of novel words will facilitate fast mapping. In this study we examine whether the learners in the experimental groups who listen to and repeat randomly presented novel word forms perform better on the subsequent fast-mapping task than do those in the control group who have had no prior speech training or practice. We maintain that production of a novel word form involves not only the activation of auditory and phonological processes (e.g., Gathercole, 2006) but also it involves speech motor control processes that occur in the execution of the word form (including motor planning–programming and coordination of all speech production subsystems). Indeed, as mentioned previously, repetition and practice in the improvement of articulatory coordinative consistency (i.e., continued fine tuning of word-form production during word learning) has been demonstrated (Sasisekaran et al., 2010). Within the context of word learning, such practice-dependent strengthening of word-form representations can be viewed as a foundation for the form-meaning mapping during the subsequent fast-mapping task. More stable word forms because of speech practice can presumably allow for greater allocation of resources to other cognitive-linguistic processes activated during the fast-mapping task, such as the processing of the semantic properties of the novel word as well as the form-meaning link (cf. Ellis Weismer & Hesketh, 1993; Just & Carpenter, 1992). The effects of speech practice on fast mapping may also be interpreted as a form of interaction between the processes from speech practice and the processes from other internal systems (e.g., cognitive processing skills), as suggested in the dynamic systems theory.

Role of Language Experience in Word Learning This study undertakes the further step of examining how word learners’ language experience contributes to their word-form learning. Several studies have examined how experience with one’s native language is related to learning an initial phonological representation (e.g., Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddeley, 1991; GutiérrezClellen & Simon-Cereijido, 2010). For example, Gathercole

930 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

et al. (1991) demonstrated that individuals showed improved performance when repeating novel words based on the phonotactic rules of his/her native language compared to novel words based on the phonotactic rules of a non-native language. However, a recent study by Gutiérrez-Clellen and SimonCereijido (2010) showed that there is a great variability in developing bilingual children’s nonword repetition performance in their dominant and nondominant languages and suggested that the individual differences may be related not only to external factors such as language input but also to within-subject factors (e.g., working memory capacity). In this study, we examine whether word learners are better aided by speech practice in their native language than by practice in an unfamiliar language. In particular, we explore the interactions between the speech and language systems in two groups of participants: monolingual English speakers and Spanish–English bilingual speakers. Specifically, all participants learn new words in their proficient languages (i.e., English for the monolingual speakers; English and Spanish for the bilingual speakers) and in their unfamiliar languages (i.e., Spanish and Cantonese for the monolingual speakers; Cantonese for the bilingual speakers). Cantonese, a tonal language that is typologically different from English and Spanish (e.g., Matthews & Yip, 1994), serves as an unfamiliar language for both groups. Rapidly forming an initial phonological representation during word-form rehearsal requires the ability to perceive the phonemes of a word and to produce the word form. It is well-documented that linguistic experience modifies an individual’s speech perception (e.g., Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom, 1992; Zhang, Kuhl, Imada, Kotani, & Tohkura, 2005) and speech production (Chakraborty et al., 2008). In the area of speech production, language parameters appear to interact with speech motor performance during speech development (e.g., Sadagopan & Smith, 2008; Walsh & Smith, 2002). For example, compared with children, adults demonstrate increased consistency in spatiotemporal coordination of speech movement trajectories and have faster speech rates (e.g., Sadagopan & Smith, 2008; Walsh & Smith, 2002). Further, the imposition of additional linguistic loads (phonological or syntactic complexity) interacts with speech motor performance and learning differentially across the developmental continuum (Sadagopan & Smith, 2008; Walsh et al., 2006). Similarly, bilingual speakers’ language experience contributes to the improvement of their speech perception and speech production in two languages. For example, infants who are raised in bilingual homes are sensitive to the phoneme contrasts in the two languages to which they are exposed (e.g., Werker, Byers-Heinlein, & Fennell, 2009). Likewise, Bengali–English speakers who started to learn English during elementary school years produced significantly faster speech rates than those who started to use English systematically at college level (Chakraborty et al., 2008). It is interesting to note that although speech perception development becomes stable by adulthood when given frequent enough exposures, children as well as adults can continue to develop to a certain degree the skill to

discriminate between the phonemes of a nonnative language (e.g., Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Flege & Liu, 2001; Iverson & Evans, 2007; Nishi & Kewley-Port, 2007). For example, Flege and Liu (2001) examined the effect of second-language (L2) experience on Chinese adults’ performance on various receptive measures (e.g., a grammaticality judgment task) and found that students with relatively longer L2 experience perform significantly better than do the students with shorter L2 experience. If the amount and quality of input is crucial to L2 acquisition, then the intensive wordform production practice included in this study will likely facilitate the learning of the new word forms even in participants’ nonnative languages and might lead to better performance on the subsequent fast-mapping task. Furthermore, bilingual speakers’ language experience appears to have an effect on the cognitive skills (e.g., attention, phonological memory) that are relevant for word learning (Brojde, Ahmed, & Colunga, 2012; Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009a; Kaushanskaya, 2012; Papagno & Vallar, 1995; Yoshida, Tran, Benitez, & Kuwabara, 2011). In a series of recent word-learning studies, Kaushanskaya and colleagues (e.g., Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009a, 2009b) have consistently demonstrated that bilingual adults outperform their monolingual peers on a word-learning task that involved artificially constructed novel words that were paired with English translations. If this finding holds true, Spanish–English bilingual speakers are likely to outperform monolingual speakers in learning new words in an unfamiliar language (e.g., Cantonese).

Current Study The goal of this study was to examine the interaction between the speech and the language systems in monolingual and in bilingual speakers in the context of word learning. In particular, we used production practice procedures that were used in previous research studies. These procedures have been shown to result in enhanced speech motor performance over time (e.g., Sasisekaran et al., 2010; Walsh et al., 2006) and are related to word-form production in this study. We examined whether improved speech motor control processes, facilitated by practice, benefit subsequent fast-mapping performance. Our goal was twofold: (a) to explore the robustness of speech practice effects on the language subsystem that involves the formation of the initial word-meaning links and (b) to examine the role of existing knowledge (one language vs. two languages) in the interactions between the speech subsystems (production–practice) and the language subsystems (fast mapping). We hypothesized that speech practice prior to fast mapping would facilitate fast-mapping performance by allowing participants to allocate more resources to the formation of the link between the established word form and its meaning. We also expected that learners’ language experience and knowledge would affect their fast-mapping performance. That is, fast-mapping performance would likely be better in participants’ stronger language than in their weaker language. However, learners who underwent speech practice were

Kan et al.: Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping

931

expected to demonstrate improved performance even in their less proficient languages. The implications of this research are theoretically and clinically significant. From a theoretical perspective, evidence for interactions between the speech and language systems will contribute to the shift in our understanding of spoken communication—a shift from the more historical perspective of hierarchical separations between the speech and language systems in communication (Levelt, 1989) to the emerging view that complex interactions between the two systems occur during communication and learning. Clinically, this research will add to preliminary evidence in support for or against using speech production training as part of language intervention programs (Bow, Blamey, Paatsch, & Sarant, 2004; Paatsch, Blamey, Sarant, & Bow, 2006).

Method Participants Sixty young adults participated in this study. Half of them were monolingual English-speaking young adults (6 male and 24 female participants), and half of them were Spanish–English bilingual young adults (9 male and 21 female participants). All participants were from Boulder or from the Denver metropolitan area in Colorado. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the participants. All participants were between the ages of 19 and 29 years (M = 23.03 years; SD = 2.99). All participants passed a hearing screening test and had no history of learning disabilities or of neurological or socioemotional concerns. Monolingual or bilingual individuals who were functionally using a foreign language were excluded from this study. For the purpose of this study, functional use of a second or third language was defined as the use of a second or third language in settings outside the classroom. Per self-report, participants in the monolingual group had an average of 16 years of education

and had been functionally using only one language from birth, although they reported that they had studied a second language (e.g., Spanish, French, Dutch) in high school or in college (see Table 1). Participants in the bilingual group learned Spanish as a home language from birth and started learning English sometime during childhood. Bilingual speakers who were functionally using a third language were not included in this study (cf. Papagno & Vallar, 1995; Van Hell & Candia Mahn, 1997). On average, these bilingual participants had 15.83 years of education (similar to their monolingual peers, F(1, 58) = 0.02, p > .05, during which they had 14.68 years of education in Spanish or in both Spanish and English. At the time of testing, all participants reported that they were fluent in both Spanish and English and were functionally using both languages. Eleven of the 30 bilingual participants had previously taken classes in a second language in high school or in college: 2 in Japanese, 2 in Mandarin Chinese (a Chinese language that is linguistically different from Cantonese), 2 in French, one in Dutch, and 2 in an unspecified language (see Table 1). However, similar to the participants in the monolingual group, the bilingual participants reported that they were not proficient in these languages and had not functionally used these languages outside the classroom settings. To verify the participants’ language skills and cognitive skills, the participants were assessed using the Picture Vocabulary and Verbal Analogies subtests of the Woodcock– Muñoz Language Survey—Revised Normative Update (WMLS–R NU; Woodcock, Muñoz-Sandoval, Ruef, & Alvarado, 2005; English for monolinguals; Spanish and English or bilinguals) and Test of Nonverbal Intelligence— Fourth Edition (TONI–4; Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 2010; see Table 1). The two WMLS–R NU subtests were selected because vocabulary knowledge has been a common clinical measure and there appears to be a link between exiting vocabulary knowledge and word learning skills (e.g.,

Table 1. Participant characteristics. Monolingual Group Mean age (SD) Mean years of education (SD) Years of foreign language classes in high school or in college Mean TONI–4 (SD) Mean WMEV (SD) Mean WMEA (SD) Mean WMSV (SD) Mean WMSA (SD)

Experimental Group 1 21.1 (1.8) 15.5 (2.5) 3–3.5 96.3 (7.0) 45.0 (2.87)* 28.2 (3.55)

Bilingual

Experimental Group 2

Control group

Experimental Group 1

Experimental Group 2

Control group

21.4 (1.08) 16.1 (2.24) 2.5–3.5

22 (1.7) 16.33 (2.31) 3–4

22.4 (3.0) 15.9 (2.68) 2–4

22.4 (2.51) 13.33 (2.68) 3–3.5

22.4 (3.33) 17.91 (2.68) 2.5–3.5

105.9 (9.76) 46.44 (1.94)* 28.75 (3.06)

102.3 (13.71) 44.8 (5.03) 29.1 (3.51) 45.6 (4.77) 33.56 (2.83)

95.6 (8.4) 42.5 (3.95) 29.1 (3.78) 42.1 (7.25) 29.4 (4.74)

100.5 (11.08) 42.8 (4.8) 26.4 (5.8) 44.0 (2.98) 29.2 (8.01)

100.3 (5.1) 46.1 (4.0)* 29.2 (2.2)

Note. The six groups were comparable in terms of age, TONI–4 scores, WMEV scores, and years of education. However, the 30 monolingual participants as a group had significantly higher WM Picture Vocabulary scores in English than the participants in the bilingual group (p < .05). Bilingual participants had similar WMSV and WMSA scores across the three groups. TONI–4 = TONI–4 Standard Score; WMEV = Woodcock–Muñoz English Picture Vocabulary Score; WMSA = Woodcock–Muñoz Spanish Analogy Score; WMSV = Woodcock–Muñoz Spanish Picture Vocabulary Score; WMSA = Woodcock–Muñoz Spanish Analogy Score; Foreign language = second language for monolingual speakers and a third language for bilingual speakers. *p < .05.

932 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

Kan, 2014; Kan & Kohnert, 2012). In addition, participants also completed a language-learning experience questionnaire regarding their use of Spanish and English across settings. The language-learning experience questionnaire results showed that although the bilingual participants reported that they functionally used both Spanish and English, they used English more frequently across home, social, and work settings. In terms of language proficiency, 22 bilingual participants reported that they felt they were more proficient in English, whereas 7 said that they were more proficient in Spanish, and 1 reported being equally proficient in Spanish and English.

Group Assignment Monolingual and bilingual adults formed two separate groups of participants in this study. Within each group (monolingual or bilingual), participants were randomly assigned to one of three word-form rehearsal groups: (a) Participants in Experimental Group 1 (intensive speech practice) repeated each of the 16 novel word forms 15 times each (240 repetitions total) prior to the fast-mapping experiment; (b) Participants in Experimental Group 2 (limited speech practice) repeated each of the 16 novel words five times each (80 repetitions total) prior to the fast-mapping experiment; (c) The third group of participants was the control group (no speech practice). The data of the participant characteristics were analyzed through 2 × 3 analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with language group (monolingual vs. bilingual) and experimental-control group (the two experimental groups and the control group) as between-subjects independent variables. Results showed that the six groups were comparable in terms of age, TONI–4 scores, WMLS–R NU Verbal Analogies scores, and years of education (see Table 1). However, the 30 monolingual participants, as a group, had significantly higher WMLS–R NU Picture Vocabulary scores in English than the 30 bilingual participants. There were no significant differences in WMLS–R NU Picture Vocabulary scores across the three groups of monolingual participants or across the three groups of bilingual participants. In addition, another ANOVA with experimentalcontrol group as a between-subjects variable revealed that bilingual participants had similar WMLS–R NU Picture Vocabulary scores in Spanish across the three groups (see Table 1).

Stimuli Sixteen novel objects were used to pair with 16 novel words for each language, simulating that an object can be paired with a label in any language. The 16 target visual stimuli, which were geometric shapes that varied in color and configuration, were chosen from 62 novel objects that were generated using Mathematica 7 (Wolfram Research, 2008). The final experimental stimuli were chosen by asking 82 monolingual young adults to complete an online questionnaire regarding whether generated novel visual objects were associated with any objects familiar to participants. The results of the questionnaire revealed that 21 objects were rated as novel to all the participants. From the 21 novel objects,

16 objects were randomly selected as the visual stimuli for this study (see Appendix A for examples of the novel objects). The visual stimuli were presented to the participants during the presentation portion of the fast-mapping task. The 16 target word forms for each language (English, Spanish, and Cantonese) were selected from 150 auditory stimuli (50 novel words per language) that were generated for this study. The novel words adhere to the phonological rules of each language and do not carry any meanings. Individual native speakers of each of the three languages selected novel words that sounded most natural to them and verified that the chosen novel words were not meaningful words in their respective language. Sixteen novel words (eight 2-syllable words and eight 3-syllable words) for each language were chosen to pair with the 16 visual stimuli (see Appendix B, the novel words). That is, three phonologically distinct word forms for the three target languages were linked with each novel object. None of the word forms were cognates. All novel words were prerecorded in a soundproof room. Stimuli in each language were produced by native speakers of each language. Recordings were captured by a microphone placed 8 cm from the speakers’ mouths, digitized at 48 KHz and 16 bits, recorded by a digital recorder (Marantz PMD670) and segmented using PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink, 2011).

Speech Practice Task and Fast-Mapping Task All participants were tested in all three language conditions: English, Spanish, and Cantonese. To control for the potential bias and interference because of the language order, language order was counterbalanced and was randomly chosen for each participant. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that there was no significant languageorder effect on the fast-mapping scores: comprehension, F(2, 57) = 0.25, p > .05, and production, F(2, 57) = 0.54, p > .05. For each language condition, the experiment involved two phases: speech practice phase (for the two experimental groups) and fast-mapping phase (for all groups). Both speech practice and fast-mapping tasks (or fast-mapping task for the control group) in one language were completed before moving on to the next language. For example, Participant A in Experimental Group 1 may have practiced all 16 words in Spanish first and completed the fast-mapping task in Spanish followed by the 16 words in Cantonese and then the 16 words in English. Speech practice task. The speech practice task was completed by all participants assigned to Experimental Groups 1 and 2. Participants in both experimental groups practiced 16 novel word forms in each of the three languages. Within a given language, there were 15 presentations of each of the stimuli for Experimental Group 1 and five presentations of each of the stimuli for Experimental Group 2. The auditory models of the 16 stimuli (i.e., 240 presentations for Group 1 and 80 for Group 2) were presented in random order. Participants were instructed to repeat the auditory stimulus as accurately as they could. That is, practicing each word form involved both auditory exposures as well as

Kan et al.: Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping

933

word-form production. No feedback was offered to participants as to their performance after each repetition. Novel visual objects were not introduced during speech practice. Participants in the control group did not receive any speech practice. Fast-mapping task. All three groups of participants completed the fast-mapping task for each language condition. Participants from the two experimental groups participated in the fast-mapping task immediately after the speech practice, whereas participants from the control group participated in the fast-mapping task at the beginning of the session. During the fast-mapping task, the words were presented in four blocks, each with four novel words (two 2-syllable words and two 3-syllable words). The order of the four blocks was counterbalanced. For each language, the fast-mapping task involved two phases: a presentation phase and a probing phase. During the presentation phase within each block, each participant was presented with each novel object two times along with each auditory word-form label for each language and was instructed to remember as many of the objects and their labels as possible. The presentation time for each novel object label was 5,000 ms, which was followed by a 1,000-ms interstimulus interval. After the presentation of the first block of words, the participant was asked to name each of the four objects during the probe phase (production probe). No prompts or feedback were given. For each object, if participants indicated that they did not know the label or did not provide any responses in 8,000 ms, they would be asked to name the next object until the probe was completed. Then, participants were asked to identify the target object from an array of four novel objects (comprehension probe). The same procedures were repeated for the other three blocks of novel words. The probability of identifying the correct target object by chance was .25 for each probe. Participants’ comprehension performance was significantly above chance—one-sample t tests compared with 25% for English, t(60) = 22.59, p < .001, for Spanish, t(60) = 17, p < .001, and for Cantonese, t(60) = 19.13, p < .001. Scoring criteria and reliability. Scoring was done word by word for both production and comprehension probes for each language. On the production portion of the experiment, to receive one point, the participant had to verbally produce the nonword exactly as it was presented during the presentation phase of the fast-mapping task. The maximum raw score possible for each language is 16. Then, the percentage correct for each task was calculated. For the English and Spanish stimuli, the participants had to produce all phonemes correctly for the response to be counted as accurate. If the participant put the stress on the wrong syllable, the response was still counted as correct if all phonemes were produced accurately. For the control language condition (i.e., Cantonese), participants were required to pronounce all phonemes correctly. Incorrect production of tones did not count against the participants’ accuracy score. The production probes were scored by the trained research assistants who are native speakers of Spanish, English, or both, as well as by the first author, who is a native speaker of Cantonese. We scored only segmental information to keep scoring

criteria and procedures comparable across the three different languages. Participants’ productions during the speech practice phase and production probe phase of this experiment were recorded using a Marantz PMD670 digital audio recorder that sampled at 48 KHz and 16 bits. Recordings were made using a condenser microphone placed È8 cm from the participant’s mouth. For the comprehension probes, the participants had to correctly identify the target object on the screen. If the participants did not respond at all or did not respond during the allotted time (i.e., 8,000 ms), the answer was marked as incorrect. Ten percent of the production data and the comprehension data were reexamined by another examiner. The interrater reliability was .92 for the production probes and .98 for the comprehension probes.

Results Table 2 summarizes the results of the fast-mapping tasks for both monolingual and bilingual participants. Repeated measures, mixed-factorial multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were used to analyze the production and comprehension data. Specifically, we examined the between-subjects and within-subject differences of the two dependent variables: namely, the percentage correct of the production and the comprehension probes on the fastmapping tasks. Two between-subjects variables and one within-subject variable were examined. The between-subjects variables were (a) experimental groups (i.e., Experimental Group 1, Experimental Group 2, and control group) and

Table 2. Fast mapping: Production and comprehension probes (percentage correct) in monolingual and bilingual speakers.

Variable

Monolingual M (SD)

Bilingual M (SD)

Production English Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group Spanish Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group Cantonese Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group English Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group Spanish Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group Cantonese Experimental Group 1 Experiment Group 2 Control group

934 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

66.3 (8.94) 40.6 (16.20) 23.8 (9.22)

55.63 (16.26) 45.00 (12.77) 23.75 (15.53)

47.5 (22.09) 28.8 (15.37) 20.0 (14.67)

50.63 (22.91) 45.00 (15.53) 35.00 (16.98)

28.8 (14.79) 32.5 (13.76) 13.8 (10.94) Comprehension

35.00 (22.48) 25.63 (13.65) 19.38 (13.65)

53.1 (16.73) 55.6 (17.04) 52.0 (11.04)

76.25 (28.84) 84.38 (20.47) 66.25 (23.79)

46.9 (15.66) 39.4 (18.41) 41.9 (15.04)

77.50 (21.49) 81.25 (15.87) 72.50 (15.92)

38.1 (14.57) 41.9 (15.04) 36.0 (13.76)

76.25 (23.53) 75.63 (22.53) 63.75 (29.43)

(b) monolingual–bilingual groups. The within-group factor was language conditions (Spanish, English, and Cantonese).

Figure 1. Speech effects on production scores of the fast-mapping tasks in monolingual and bilingual speakers.

Production As summarized in Table 3, the analysis showed a significant between-subjects speech practice effect, F(2, 54) = 11.19, p < .001, h2 = .5, and a significant within-subject language effect, F(2, 108) = 75.39, p < .001, h2 = .62. There were no significant monolingual–bilingual effects, F(2, 54) = 3.86, p = .06, or Monolingual–Bilingual Group × Speech Practice interaction effects, F(2, 108) = 0.2, p > .05. There were, however, significant two-way interactions between language and monolingual–bilingual group, F(2, 108) = 10.16, p < .001, h2 = .48, and between language and speech practice, F(4, 108) = 8.93, p < .001, h2 = .4. There was a three-way interaction between Monolingual–Bilingual Group × Language × Speech Practice, F(4, 108) = 3.17, p < .05; h2 = .02. Although there was no main effect of monolingual–bilingual, the interaction effects indicated that some effects (e.g., learning English words, Spanish words, or Cantonese) are dependent on whether the participants are monolingual or bilingual. Speech practice effects. Post hoc analysis indicated that Experimental Group 1 outperformed both Experimental Group 2 (p < .05, d = 0.9) and the control group (p < .001, d = 2.3), and Experimental Group 2 out-performed the Control Group (p < .01, d = 1.6). Within-subject language effects. When the data were collapsed across the monolingual and bilingual groups, participants’ fast-mapping performance in the English and the Spanish conditions was seen to be comparable (p > .05). By contrast, participants’ fast-mapping scores for the English and Spanish conditions were better than those for Cantonese, p < .001, d = 4.1, and p < .001, d = 3.02, respectively. Table 3. Speech practice and language experience effects on fast mapping. Source Production Monolingual–bilingual group Speech motor practice Language Group × Speech Practice Language × Monolingual–Bilingual Group Language × Speech Practice Language × Monolingual–Bilingual Group × Speech Motor Practice Comprehension Monolingual–bilingual group Speech practice Language Group × Speech Practice Language × Monolingual–Bilingual Group Language × Speech Practice Language × Monolingual–Bilingual Group × Speech Practice *p < .05. **p < .001.

df

F

p

1 2 2 2 2 4 4

3.86 11.19 75.39 0.2 10.15 8.93 3.17

.06 .05. We found no three-way interaction between monolingual–bilingual, speech practice, and language, F(4, 108) = 0.13, p > .05. Within-subject language effect. Pairwise comparisons showed that participants had greater English scores than Spanish scores ( p < .001, d = 2.2) and Cantonese scores ( p < .01, d = 0.14). Participants’ Spanish scores and Cantonese scores were not significantly different from each other ( p > .05). Monolingual–bilingual group effect. Overall, bilingual participants outperformed monolingual participants ( p < .001, d = 0.9) in terms of identifying novel objects during the fast-mapping task, as shown in Figure 2. The Language × Monolingual–Bilingual Group effect indicated that there was a difference between monolingual and bilingual speakers in terms of fast mapping new words in participants’ proficient languages and nonproficient languages. Monolingual participants identified more target novel words in the English condition than in the Spanish condition ( p < .05, d = 1.0) or in the Cantonese condition ( p < .05, d = 0.8), and there was no difference between the Spanish or Cantonese condition ( p > .05). By contrast, bilingual participants did not differ in terms of fast mapping target words across the three language conditions. The Language × Monolingual– Bilingual Group effect also indicated that bilingual participants outperformed monolingual participants in all language conditions: English ( p < .01, d = 0.9), Spanish ( p < .001, d = 2.01), and Cantonese ( p < .001, d = 1.5).

Discussion In this study we explored the relationship between the degree of speech practice (i.e. spoken word-form rehearsal)

and subsequent fast-mapping performance. In particular, we examined (a) whether speech practice facilitates fast mapping in native languages or nonnative languages and (b) how language experience and knowledge (monolingual vs. bilingual) affect the relationship between speech practice and fast mapping. Results showed that fast mapping is affected by the amount of speech practice in participants’ native and nonnative languages, although there are differences between novel word production and comprehension performance. In addition, different patterns of fast-mapping performance were found between monolingual and bilingual participants. It should be noted that because each participant was required to label each novel object in three languages, the order of language was counterbalanced in our design. Post hoc analyses confirmed that no language order effects were present for our data. Results are discussed with respect to the primary study questions.

Speech Practice Effects on Fast Mapping One of the contributions of this study is the clear evidence for speech practice effects on fast mapping in both monolingual and bilingual speakers. However, the effects were found only on the scores from the production probe and not from the comprehension probe of the fast-mapping task. When asked to name novel objects, the intensive speech practice group (i.e., Experimental Group 1 that repeated the target word forms 15 times) out-performed the less intensive practice group (Experimental Group 2 that repeated the

936 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

target word forms five times). However, both groups did better than the control group. The effects were found in participants’ native languages as well as in their nonnative languages. It is important to consider the possibility that differences between monolingual and bilingual participant groups may have contributed to our effect—recall that the 30 monolingual participants had significantly higher WMLS–R NU Picture Vocabulary scores in English than did the 30 bilingual participants, although participants’ characteristics were comparable across the experimental and control groups. Additional analyses completed using WMLS–RNU Picture Vocabulary scores as a covariate in the statistical model demonstrated that the speech practice effects were still significant, F(2, 53) = 22.29, p < .001, h2 = .39, confirming that this difference between the groups did not account for the effect noted in this study. To rule out the possibility that third language experience affected the performance of bilingual participants, we re-ran our analysis after removing the 11 bilingual participants who had taken a third language class in high school or in college. The results showed that the speech effects were still evident, F(2, 43) = 5.9, p < .05, h2 = .31. Consistent with our hypothesis, the data in this study suggest that the amount of speech practice is related to novel word learning. Specifically, the results suggest that the learners in the experimental groups (who have more distinctive word-form representations than do the participants in the control group) have an advantage in naming novel objects during the fast-mapping task. One explanation for these results comes from skill acquisition literature wherein it has been well established that motor skill acquisition is associated with changes in brain activation patterns— a phenomenon that reflects a shift toward increased automatic (vs. executive) control of movement. In other words, practiced motor skills require less cognitive effort during performance as compared with novel tasks (Doyon & Benali, 2005; Poldrack et al., 2005; Wu, Chan, & Hallett, 2010). For participants who practiced word forms in this study, the strengthened representations of those forms may have done the following: (a) facilitated easier retrieval of word forms during the production probe of the fast-mapping task and (b) allowed for greater allocation of cognitive resources to making an association between the practiced word forms and pictures that were to be named. These suggestions fit nicely within the framework of the dynamic systems theory. That is, the strengthened speech motor processes for producing the words facilitate the processes in other internal systems (e.g., cognitive processing skills) that are relevant for fast mapping, and these strengthened systems lead to better fast-mapping outcomes. It is important to note that the speech practice effects were found not only in participants’ native languages (i.e., English in monolingual speakers; English and Spanish in bilingual speakers) but also in their nonnative languages (i.e., Spanish and Cantonese in monolingual speakers; Cantonese in bilingual speakers). The findings, consistent with previous work on exposures and second-language learning, show that practice can boost aspects of word learning in adult second-language learners (e.g., Flege et al., 1999).

Overall, as expected, both monolingual and bilingual participants identified more target words than producing them during the fast-mapping task. However, there was no effect of speech practice effects on the comprehension measure. There are two possible explanations for the absence of a practice effect on novel word comprehension scores. First, the absence of an effect might be related to the betweensubjects design of this study. MacLeod et al. (2010) pointed out that the production effect on word recognition can only be found in studies of within-subject designs in which half of the target words were rehearsed, whereas the other half were not. From the perspective of the levels-of-processing model of memory, opportunities to encode and process the information are critical to recognizing the target items. An experiment with practiced and unpracticed items in a withinsubject design might more effectively facilitate the recognition of the practiced items. By contrast, participants in the current between-subjects study did not have the same retrieval advantages. However, this explanation does not account for why there was an effect of speech practice on the naming of novel words during the fast-mapping experiment. Future within-subject investigations are needed to test this hypothesis. Second, the aforementioned difference might be related to the nature of the task demand for the two tasks. All participants were exposed twice to the novel images—which were presented together with the word forms—during the presentation phase of the fast-mapping task. The production measure required the participants to name a target novel object when one image was presented, whereas a comprehension task required them to identify a target object from an array of four. Perhaps it is relatively more straightforward to retrieve the lexical representation for one novel image. As suggested earlier, participants in the experimental groups who received speech practice may have had the advantage of stronger word-form representations and, thus, have demonstrated better performance while producing the target word forms when a single novel image was presented. On the other hand, it could be argued that identifying a target novel object from four competing images is a much more challenging task. To counter this view, however, one may note that previous studies have indicated that the novel word comprehension task is easier than the production task (cf. Gray, 2003; Kan & Kohnert, 2008, 2012). It appears, then, that there is a complex interaction between practice and novel word-learning processes that must be examined further in future studies that assess language–motor interactions in word learning. As a next step, the hypothesis that competing stimuli account for the present findings can be verified by studies that use a recognition task with one or two images. Alternately, a variant of the current practice paradigm, perhaps incorporating the visual stimulus, may be better suited for improving comprehension components of fast mapping.

Language Experience Effects: Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers A second contribution of this study is that it shows the interrelationships between speech practice, language

Kan et al.: Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping

937

experience and knowledge, and fast mapping. Overall, the data in this study revealed that monolingual and bilingual speakers performed better in their native languages than in their nonnative languages. One of the possible explanations of the finding is that the knowledge of the phonological system of a language (i.e., English for monolingual speakers; Spanish and English for bilingual speakers) might be the basis for the short-term retention of the lexical-semantic information of the target words. Consistent with this result is the finding that both groups did not retain as many novel words in Cantonese relative to the other two languages (although the degree of difference between languages varied for monolingual and bilingual participants). It is interesting to note that with speech practice, both monolingual and bilingual adult learners were able to fast map words in a nonnative language. This finding is consistent with previous studies that explored the relationship between exposures and phoneme discrimination in a nonnative language (e.g., Flege & Liu, 2001; Flege et al., 1999). It is important to note that the data in this study extend our knowledge beyond the identification of word forms in a nonnative language. This study demonstrates that more intensive exposures (inherent to speech practice) can potentially facilitate not only word-form learning but also an individual’s utilization of initial form-meaning mapping— an important step in word learning. A third important finding is that bilingual participants had better performance on the novel word comprehension task than did monolingual participants across the experimental and control groups in their native and nonnative languages, although no such effect was found on the novel word production fast-mapping measure. This monolingual– bilingual effect was still significant even when the scores WM Picture Vocabulary in English were used as a covariate in the model, F(1, 53) = 66.55, p < .001. It is interesting to note that bilinguals had better fast-mapping performances even in Cantonese (their nonnative language). This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies that have investigated the effect of bilingualism on word learning (e.g., Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009a, 2009b). It might be that bilinguals’ experience in functionally using two languages facilitates their performance on metaphonological tasks (Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003), on aspects of linguistic processing (e.g., Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005), and on nonlinguistic cognitive skills such as selective attention and inhibitory control (Bialystok, Craik, & Ryan, 2006; Bialystok & Martin, 2004). It is possible that exposure to two languages facilitates bilinguals’ cognitive ability to learn novel phonological forms and, thus, to have better performance on the comprehension measures of the fast-mapping task. The absence of any effects on the production measure of the fast-mapping task might be because of the task demand of the production task.

Study Limitations and Conclusions There are three methodological limitations in this study. First, issues that are related to second or third

language learning experience of the monolingual and bilingual speakers might affect the results. In this study, we excluded monolingual speakers who used a second language and bilingual speakers who used a third or fourth language outside the classroom settings. However, we relied on participants’ self-reports (e.g., whether they use a second– third language such as French or Dutch functionally) to exclude those unqualified participants. Future studies should establish more objective criteria to exclude those who have functionally used in second or third language outside classroom settings. Second, this study required that participants of the two experimental groups repeat the novel word forms prior to the fast-mapping task. Because practicing a word form involves auditory exposure to the word form as well as production practice, it could be argued that better performance by the experimental groups might be related to auditory exposure and not to speech practice. However, as pointed out earlier, previous research has suggested that verbally producing word forms appears to be more effective than simply being exposed to the word form without producing it (e.g., MacLeod et al., 2010). If exposure, rather than speech practice, were the main source for the speech practice effect, then speech practice effects would be expected to be found in both fast-mapping production as well as comprehension scores in this study. However, speech practice effects were found only in the production scores. To further examine the components of repetition effects, further studies may compare participants’ performance in auditory exposure only and repeating conditions. Third, we found that the speech practice effects remained significant even when group differences in WMLS–R NU Picture Vocabulary scores in English were taken into account. However, the monolingual–bilingual group differences in this study suggest that researchers should consider the potential differences because of language exposures between monolingual and bilingual speakers when recruiting participants for comparison. In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that both speech practice and language knowledge are key factors for the success of fast mapping. Theoretically, the findings contribute to our understanding of the interaction between speech and language processes during the initial stage of word learning. In addition, the findings show how this relationship is associated with language experience (i.e., of monolingual vs. bilingual speakers) and provide evidence indicating the potential relationship between the speech, language, and cognition subsystems (e.g., Smith, 2006). Clinically, our data suggest that clinical methods that facilitate word-form learning hold promise as a means of improving word learning. In regard to children and adults who have poor phonological memory, speech practice may strengthen their word representations and may facilitate their fast mapping. In regard to second-language learners, increasing their experience of the word forms by using speech practice may also improve their word learning. Future studies are needed of various systematic learning conditions on fast mapping to more fully understand the underlying mechanisms of word learning.

938 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

Acknowledgments A portion of these data comprised an honors thesis by Lauren Janich. The data were presented at the Annual American Speech, Language, and Hearing Convention in San Diego, CA, in 2011. University of Colorado funding was provided through a Faculty Fellowship Award to Pui Fong Kan by Implementation of Multicultural Perspectives and Approaches in Research and Teaching (IMPART) and through an award to Lauren Janich and an award to Marixa Andrade from the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). We are grateful to Lindsey Miller and Kelsy Rosenquist for their help with data collection and scoring. We extend our sincere thanks to the monolingual and bilingual participants for their participation.

References Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Ryan, J. (2006). Executive control in a modified antisaccade task: Effects of aging and bilingualism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1341–1354. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 43–61. Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44. Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325–339. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.2) [Computer program]. Retrieved from www.praat.org/ Bow, C. P., Blamey, P. J., Paatsch, L. E., & Sarant, J. Z. (2004). The effects of phonological and morphological training on speech perception scores and grammatical judgments in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 305–314. Brojde, C., Ahmed, S., & Colunga, E. (2012). Bilingual and monolingual children attend to different cues when learning new words. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3360464/ Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2010). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence—Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Capone, N., & McGregor, K. K. (2005). The effect of semantic representation on toddlers’ word retrieval. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1468–1480. Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference, 15, 17–29. Chakraborty, R., Goffman, L., & Smith, A. (2008). Physiological indices of bilingualism: Oral–motor coordination and speech rate in Bengali–English speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 321–332. doi:10.1044/1092-4388 (2008/024) Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2005). From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review, 112, 347–382. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.

Doyon, J., & Benali, H. (2005). Reorganization and plasticity in the adult brain during learning of motor skills. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 161–167. Ellis, N. C., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 559–617. Ellis Weismer, S., & Hesketh, L. J. (1993). The influence of prosodic and gestural cues on novel word acquisition by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1013–1025. Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552. Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104. Gathercole, S. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543. Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). The influences of number of syllables and wordlikeness on children’s repetition of nonwords. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 349–367. Gray, S. (2003). Word-learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: What predicts success? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 56–67. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2010). Using nonword repetition tasks for the identification of language impairment in Spanish–English speaking children: Does the language of assessment matter? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 48–58. Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2007). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 866–877. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. Kan, P. (2014). Novel word retention in sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 41, 416–438. Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2008). Fast mapping by bilingual preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 35, 495–514. Kan, P., & Kohnert, K. (2012). A growth curve analysis of novel word learning by sequential bilingual preschool children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 452–469. Kaushanskaya, M. (2012). Cognitive mechanisms of word learning in bilingual and monolingual adults: The role of phonological memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 470–489. Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2009a). The bilingual advantage in novel word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 705–710. Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2009b). Bilingualism reduces native-language interference in novel word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 829–835. Kaushanskaya, M., & Yoo, J. (2011). Rehearsal effects in adult word learning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 121–148. Kleinow, J., & Smith, A. (2006). Potential interactions among linguistic, autonomic, and motor factors in speech. Developmental Psychobiology, 48, 275–287. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992, January 31). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608.

Kan et al.: Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping

939

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Hula, S. N. A., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 277–298. MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671–685. Maner, K. J., Smith, A., & Grayson, L. (2000). Influences of utterance length and complexity on speech motor performance in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 560–573. Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (1997). Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature, 385, 813–815. Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London, England: Routledge. McGregor, K. K., Sheng, L., & Ball, T. (2007). Complexities of expressive word learning over time. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 353–364. Munro, N., Baker, E., McGregor, K., Docking, K., & Arculi, J. (2012). Why word learning is not fast. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3289981/pdf/fpsyg-03-00041.pdf Nishi, K., & Kewley-Port, D. (2007). Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: Influence of training sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1496–1509. Paatsch, L. E., Blamey, P. J., Sarant, J. Z., & Bow, C. P. (2006). The effects of speech production and vocabulary training on different components of spoken language performance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 39–55. Page, M. P. A., & Norris, D. (2009). A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364, 3737–3753. Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1992). Phonological short-term memory and the learning of novel words: The effects of phonological similarity and item length. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 47–67. Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 98–107. Poldrack, R. A., Sabb, F. W., Foerde, K., Tom, S. M., Asarnow, R. F., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Knowlton, B. J. (2005). The neural correlates of motor skill automaticity. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 5356–5364. Regier, T. (2005). The emergence of words: Attentional learning in form and meaning. Cognitive Science, 29, 819–865. Sadagopan, N., & Smith, A. (2008). Developmental changes in the effects of utterance length and complexity on speech movement variability. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1138–1151. Sadagopan, N., & Smith, A. (2013). Age differences in speech motorperformance on a novel speech task. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1552–1566. doi:10.1044/ 1092-4388(2013/12-0293) Sasisekaran, J., Smith, A., Sadagopan, N., & Weber-Fox, C. (2010). Nonword repetition in children and adults: Effects

on movement coordination. Developmental Science, 13, 521–532. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, A. (2006). Speech motor development: Integrating muscles, movements, and linguistic units. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 331–349. Smith, A., Sadagopan, N., Walsh, B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2010). Increasing phonological complexity reveals heightened instability in inter-articulatory coordination in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 35, 1–18. Szmalec, A., Duyck, W., Vandierendonck, A., Mata, A. B., & Page, M. P. A. (2009). The Hebb repetition effect as a laboratory analogue of novel word learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 435–443. Thorn, A. S., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Language differences in verbal short-term memory do not exclusively originate in the process of subvocal rehearsal. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 357–364. Van Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review, 98, 3–53. Van Geert, P. (1994). Vygotskian dynamics of development. Human Development, 37, 346–365. Van Geert, P. (1995). Dimensions of change: A semantic and mathematical analysis of learning and development. Human Development, 38, 322–331. Van Hell, J. G., & Candia Mahn, A. C. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learners. Language Learning, 47, 507–546. Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). Fast mapping across time: Memory processes support children’s retention of learned words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 46. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2012.00046 Walsh, B., & Smith, A. (2002). Articulatory movements in adolescents: Evidence for protracted development of speech motor control processes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1119–1133. Walsh, B., Smith, A., & Weber-Fox, C. (2006). Short-term plasticity in children’s speech motor systems. Developmental Psychobiology, 48, 660–674. Werker, J. F., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Fennell, C. T. (2009). Bilingual beginnings to learning words. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364, 3649–3663. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0105 Wolfram Research. (2008). Mathematica (Version 7.0). Champaign, IL: Author. Woodcock, R. W., Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., Ruef, M. L., & Alvarado, C. G. (2005). Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey—Revised Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Wu, T., Chan, P., & Hallett, M. (2010). Effective connectivity of neural networks in automatic movements in Parkinson’s disease. NeuroImage, 49, 2581–2587. Yoshida, H., Tran, D. N., Benitez, V., & Kuwabara, M. (2011). Inhibition and adjective learning in bilingual and monolingual children. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3172728/ Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Kotani, M., & Tohkura, Y. (2005). Effects of language experience: Neural commitment to language-specific auditory patterns. NeuroImage, 26, 703–720.

940 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 57 • 929–941 • June 2014

Appendix A Examples of Visual Stimuli

Appendix B Phonetic Transcription of Nonwords English 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

baysloop cayskuz thaperthow fuchasaib beemaz gaushoop moyvaysav daspowpud liteev vaypem bagozaip fraydofreeb moobaive pergob thazeblint sapperwike

IPA

Spanish

IPA

Cantonese

IPA

/bæslup/ /keɪskʌz/ /θaperθow/ /fʊtʃaseɪb/ /bimɑz/ /gəʊʃup/ /mɔɪveɪsæv/ /dæspowpud/ /lɪtiv/ /veɪpdʒɛm/ /bagowzaɪp/ /feɪdoʊfrib/ /mubeɪv/ /pɚgɔb/ /θazɛblɪnt/ /saperwaɪk/

famo gaji dajofi sajelu chani chube bifupa purobi muja najo mochafe pichube feju pemi goruda fonute

/famo/ /ɣagi/ ðajofi sajelu /tʃaɲi/ /tʃube/ /bifupa/ /puRobi/ /muxa/ /ɲaxo/ /motʃafe/ /pitʃube/ /feju/ /pemi/ goruða foɲute

feoi tsim gat pib ngaat pam koi koi him daau doe ngaan paat wau goi tsei moi fou tsim kap kok be wang shyun bou moe faam faat myu tshaap sip bim poi tshui bou fau hak mik ngei fip

/fœɪ2 tsɪm5/ /gɐt3 pɪp̚ 6/ /ŋɐt ̚ 6 pɐm1 khɔɪ1/ /khɔɪ1 hɪm3 dɐʊ2/ /dœ1 ŋɐn1/ /pɐt3 waʊ3/ /gɔɪ3 tseɪ1 mɔɪ2/ /foʊ1 tsɪm3 kɐp̚3/ /kɔk̚3 be3/ /wɐŋ1 tshyn1/ /bou1 moe1 fɐm3/ /fɐt ̚ 1 myu1 tshɐp̚1/ /sɪp̚ 1 bɪm3/ /pɔɪ3 tshui3/ /bou3 faʊ3 hak̚ 3/ /mɪk3 ŋeɪ1 fɪp̚1/

Note. Each syllable of the novel words in Cantonese carries a lexical tone. The number immediately after each syllable of each word is the tonal marker: 1 high-level tone; 2 low–mid to high-rising tone; 3 mid-level tone; 4 low–mid to low-falling tone; 5 low to low–mid-rising tone; 6 low–mid-level tone.

Kan et al.: Effects of Speech Practice on Fast Mapping

941

Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.