View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evidence for Language-Specific Influence on the Preference of Stress Patterns in Infants Learning an Iambic Language (Hebrew)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evidence for Language-Specific Influence on the Preference of Stress Patterns in Infants Learning an Iambic Language (Hebrew)
Language: English
Authors: Segal, Osnat, Kishon-Rabin, Liat
Source: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Oct 2012 55(5):1329-1341.
Availability: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: 800-638-8255; Fax: 301-571-0457; e-mail: subscribe@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.asha.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Semitic Languages, Infants, Preferences, Suprasegmentals, English, Recognition (Psychology)
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0087)
ISSN: 1092-4388
Abstract: Purpose: The ability of infants to develop recognition of a common stress pattern that is language specific has been tested mainly in trochaic languages with a strong-weak (SW) stress pattern. The goals of the present study were: (a) to test Hebrew-learning infants on their stress pattern preference in the Hebrew language, for which the weak-strong (WS) stress pattern is the common one, and (b) to test whether the infants would generalize any preference for the common stress pattern in Hebrew to English words, which belong to a different rhythmic class. Method: Fifty-six 9-month-old Hebrew-learning infants were tested on their preference for SW and WS stress patterns using Hebrew and English bisyllabic words with the Head-Turn Preference Procedure. Results: The infants showed preference for WS Hebrew words but not for SW English words. Conclusion: Hebrew-learning infants recognize the common stress pattern in their native language, supporting language-specific distributional learning by infants. This recognition, however, is not generalized to a foreign language with different prosodic characteristics.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ984826
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGp4pfRoKHURPhg9rO5t_N7AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA5Rg7posmuqE27RhgIBEICBmkdaa_vm79Q5J4AcOtYwaTLJN8fkhKGcLeWBg0XuezfTnE6md8gyA4kstBKdMIs7FC20m9lQcdIkSAGIkPv2s9laua4UYoccTy6cWfO2raQ-JsRE-QUar1FTVFLKwsRFiSAE1iPHrygVZA-6Mnf_0cRh0fYEUAr92HjLmSXjWGv5EBBgbgLwwg4vUP_9ydXIVIDcBP-3-vQJei4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0082115515;1sm01oct.12;2012Oct04.11:07;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0082115515-1">Evidence for Language-Specific Influence on the Preference of Stress Patterns in Infants Learning an Iambic Language (Hebrew) </title> <p>Purpose: The ability of infants to develop recognition of a common stress pattern that is language specific has been tested mainly in trochaic languages with a strong-weak (SW) stress pattern. The goals of the present study were: (a) to test Hebrew-learning infants on their stress pattern preference in the Hebrew language, for which the weak-strong (WS) stress pattern is the common one, and (b) to test whether the infants would generalize any preference for the common stress pattern in Hebrew to English words, which belong to a different rhythmic class.</p> <p>Method: Fifty-six 9-month-old Hebrew-learning infants were tested on their preference for SW and WS stress patterns using Hebrew and English bisyllabic words with the Head-Turn Preference Procedure.</p> <p>Results: The infants showed preference for WS Hebrew words but not for SW English words.</p> <p>Conclusion: Hebrew-learning infants recognize the common stress pattern in their native language, supporting language-specific distributional learning by infants. This recognition, however, is not generalized to a foreign language with different prosodic characteristics.</p> <p>Received April 10, 2011 Revision received September 30, 2011 Accepted February 15, 2012</p> <p>Article</p> <p>Key Words: speech perception development; preference of stress patterns in an iambic language; early language acquisition; development of auditory skills</p> <p>The prosodic pattern of the native language is thought to influence the initial stages of language acquisition (Curtin, Mintz, & Christiansen, 2005; Goyet, de Schonen, & Nazzi, 2010; Houston, Jusczyk, Kuijpers, Coolen, & Cutler, 2000; Jusczyk, Houston, & Newsome, 1999; Nazzi, Dilley, Jusczyk, Shattuck-Hufnagel, & Jusczyk, 2005; Nazzi, Iakimova, Bertoncini, Frédonie, & Alcantara, 2006; Polka & Sundara, 2011). It is characterized by a rhythm and a common position of stressed syllables in words. In general, a language can be placed into one of three main rhythm classes: stress-timed, syllable-timed, and mora-timed languages. In stress-timed languages, such as English, stressed syllables appear at a roughly constant rate such that the duration between stressed syllables is approximately equal. Consequently, if stressed syllables are prolonged, the nonstressed syllables are shortened to accommodate the overall rhythm. In syllable-timed (e.g., French) and mora-timed (e.g., Japanese) languages, however, syllables or morae (subsyllabic units) are spoken at a roughly constant rate regardless of stress. Thus, every syllable or mora is thought to take nearly the same amount of time (Abercrombie, 1967; Pike, 1945; Ramus, Nespor, & Mehler, 1999).</p> <p>The common placement of stress in words also varies among languages. In some languages (e.g., English), most words are stressed on the first syllable, termed a strong-weak (SW) or trochaic stress pattern, whereas in other languages (e.g., Hebrew)mostwords are stressed on the final syllable, termed a weak-strong (WS) or iambic stress pattern. Moreover, some languages have fixed stress; that is, stress is always placed on the same syllable (e.g., Hungarian). In other languages, however, stress is not fixed and can distinguish between lexical items (e.g., pérmit vs. permít in English, and náal ["shoe"] vs. naál ["closed"] in Hebrew). These differences among languages provide us with an opportunity to learn how exposure to the native language influences stress pattern perception.</p> <p>It is theorized that sensitivity to prosodic characteristics of the native language develops in infancy through listening experience and distributional learning of the common stress pattern of the language (Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993). This language-specific view suggests that exposure to the rhythmic structure of the native language enables infants to identify the specific prosodic units (e.g., the syllable or the common stress pattern) used in word segmentation (e.g., Curtin et al., 2005; Echols, Crowhurst, & Childers, 1997; Goyet et al., 2010; Houston et al., 2000; Houston, Santelmann, & Jusczyk, 2004; Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Jusczyk & Aslin, 1995; Jusczyk et al., 1999; Morgan & Saffran, 1995; Nazzi et al., 2005, 2006). In trochaic languages, for example, recognition (preference) of the common SW stress pattern appears between 6 and 9 months of age, which is similar to or even before the age at which stress-based segmentation procedures are known to develop (Höhle, Bijeljac-Babic, Herold, Weissenborn, & Nazzi, 2009; Jusczyk, Cutler, et al., 1993; Pons & Bosch, 2010; Turk, Jusczyk, & Gerken, 1995). Because most data on stress-pattern preference have been collected for trochaic languages, it is not clear whether the bias for SW stress patterns is universal or dependent on the common stress pattern in the language.</p> <p>Although most attention has been given to the ability of infants to learn the common pattern of their language through distributional learning (e.g., Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993; Pons & Bosch, 2010), physical characteristics of stressed and weak syllables may also play a role in this process. There is evidence to suggest that elements contrasting in intensity form groupings with initial prominence whereas elements contrasting in duration naturally form groupings with final prominence (Woodrow, 1951). These principles are known as the iambic/trochaic law (Hayes, 1995). Higher intensity and longer duration are correlates of lexically stressed syllables in English and other languages, and thus the iambic /trochaic law may affect grouping of strong and weak syllables in those languages based on auditory predispositions (Hay & Diehl, 2007; Tyler & Cutler, 2009). Evidence for the influence of the iambic/trochaic law on the perception of tones and syllables was found in both adults and infants (Hay & Diehl, 2007; Trainor & Adams 2000; Yoshida et al., 2010). Thus, it is possible that both universal perceptual principles (the iambic/trochaic law) and stress position in the native language may facilitate segmentation and affect preference of stress patterns (Tyler & Cutler, 2009; Yoshida et al., 2010). The purpose of the present study was to collect data in modern Israeli Hebrew in order to gain further insight into the role of language experience in prosodic processing skills of infants learning an iambic language (Segal, Nir-Sagiv, Kishon-Rabin, & Ravid, 2009).</p> <p>Sensitivity to stress changes is known to begin early on in life. Studies have shown that typically developing infants can detect changes in word stress patterns during the first months of life (e.g., Jusczyk & Thompson, 1978; Sansavini, Bertoncini, & Giovanelli, 1997; Spring & Dale, 1977; van Ooijen, Bertoncini, Sansavini, & Mehler, 1997; Weber, Hahne, Friedrich, & Friederici, 2004). Other studies have shown that newborns are able to discriminate between languages that differ in their rhythm class and improve their ability to distinguish between languages that belong to the same rhythm class within the first 5months of life (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 1997, 2001; Mehler et al., 1988; Moon, Cooper, & Fifer, 1993; Nazzi, Bertoncini, & Mehler, 1998; Nazzi, Jusczyk, & Johnson, 2000; Ramus, Hauser, Miller, Morris, & Mehler, 2000).</p> <p>During the second half of the first year of life (but not before), infants have shown a listening bias for the SW stress pattern (e.g., dáddy) that is predominant in trochaic languages such as English, Spanish, and German. This listening bias was manifested by longer listening times for words with a SW stress pattern compared to words with a WS stress pattern (Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993; Turk et al., 1995, for English; Höhle et al., 2009, for German; Pons & Bosch, 2010, for Spanish). There are a few explanations for this bias. The most common explanation is that preference is language specific. It suggests that infants implicitly learn the common stress pattern of their native language and consequently demonstrate a listening bias for that stress pattern (e.g., Höhle et al., 2009; Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993). A less popular explanation relates to the acoustic properties of the SW stress pattern. It is assumed that the first, stressed syllable in the SW stress pattern is associated with increased pitch and amplitude, whereas the final, weak syllable is associated with a possible final lengthening. These acoustic cues may universally draw infants' attention to the SW template and away from the WS one (Echols et al., 1997; Turk et al., 1995). Alternatively, it has been suggested that there is a universal trochaic bias for the SW stress pattern (Allen & Hawkins, 1978, 1980) or a predisposition to extract and store stressed and final syllables that may direct the attention of infants to the SW template regardless of their native language (Echols & Newport, 1992; Gleitman & Wanner, 1982). One way to tease apart these hypotheses is to test infants' preference for the common stress pattern in an iambic language in which the common stress pattern is WS. If infants show preference for the common WS stress pattern, it may support the language-specific hypothesis. Other outcomes may support a more universal explanation.</p> <p>The only attempt, to our knowledge, to test preference of stress patterns in a nontrochaic language was conducted with French-learning infants (Friederici, Friedrich, & Christophe, 2007; Höhle et al., 2009). French, as previously indicated, is typically considered a syllable-timed language with an overall equal length of syllables, possible final lengthening, no clear lexical stress, and no use of stress to distinguish between words (Höhle et al., 2009). Stress in French is described as either being nonspecified lexically or as falling on the last full vowel of content words (Dell & Vergnaud, 1984). It is therefore not surprising that 6-month-old French-learning infants did not show any preference for either the SW or the WS stress pattern (Höhle et al., 2009).Moreover, 9-month-old French-learning infants could not discriminate between lists of stress-initial and stress-final pseudowords (Skoruppa et al., 2009), and infants acquiring European French did not utilize stressed syllables for segmentation (Goyet et al., 2010; Nazzi et al., 2006). Similar to French-learning infants, French adult listeners showed reduced discrimination for stress in nonsense trisyllabic words when tested with an ABX paradigm (Dupoux, Pallier, Sebastian, & Mehler, 1997).</p> <p>The data published so far raise several questions. The first question is whether infants exposed to iambic languages with clear lexical stress would show a language-specific recognition (preference) for the common WS stress pattern over the less common SW one. To answer this question, we proposed to study Hebrew-learning infants with Hebrew words. Modern Israeli Hebrew (MIH) is unique in that it is an iambic language that is neither stress-timed nor syllable-timed. Therefore, its prosodic structure differs from that of both English and French. The characteristic stress rhythm in MIH is an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables; but unlike English, the metrical structure of MIH is word final (iambic), and there is no phonemic contrast between full and reduced vowels in strong versus weak syllables (Bolozky, 1982). Data of 228, 946 Hebrew tokens show that among bisyllabic words (50.5% of all word types), the iambic (WS) stress pattern is the predominant pattern in terms of word tokens (72.2%) and types (75.5%); and among trisyllabic words (20% of all word types), final stress is the predominant pattern in terms of word tokens (52%) and types (58%; Segal et al., 2009). Additionally, MIH is weight insensitive; that is, the assignment of stress is not affected by heaviness (phonological structure) of syllables. Phonetic measurements suggest that a vowel in the stressed syllable may be twice as long as a vowel in an unstressed syllable. Hebrew, therefore, cannot be classified as a syllable-timed language, such as French, in which every syllable theoretically takes up approximately the same amount of time (Becker, 2003). Stress assignment in MIH is not fixed, although the common stress pattern is WS, and stress is utilized to make lexical distinctions between words. This suggests that Hebrew data may prove more comparable than French data to the results documented for trochaic English and German languages (Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993; Höhle et al., 2009).</p> <p>The second question is whether infants would transfer any preference for a specific stress pattern to an unfamiliar language. That is, if Hebrew-learning infants demonstrate a preference for the common stress pattern of the Hebrew language (WS), will they show the same preference when exposed to an unfamiliar language such as English? If they do, that finding may suggest that the learning of the common stress pattern is not "tied" to any other phonetic feature of the language. If, however, these infants do not show preference for WS words in a foreign language, then it may suggest that learning of the common stress pattern is related or tied to other features of the language. Some data suggest that infants represent stress patterns of words in their native language along with other phonetic-phonological features. Spanish-learning infants, for example, showed preference for trochaic patterns in their native language only when these trochaic patterns were presented in a specific phonological structure of CVC.CV words in which trochaic stress is common in Spanish. However, these infants did not show preference for trochaic patterns when these were presented in CV.CVC words in which iambic stress is common in Spanish (Pons & Bosch, 2010). Thus, if representation of stress patterns is tied to the acoustic cues of the native language, it is assumed that preference for the common stress pattern in the native language will not transfer to a foreign one.</p> <p>In sum, in order to answer the question of whether listening preference for stress patterns is influenced by linguistic experience with the native language or by auditory bias based on the acoustic characteristics of the signal, we proposed to study Hebrew-learning infants with English words. Generalization of preference for the common WS stress pattern in Hebrew to English may suggest that the representation of the common stress pattern is stored independently of the detailed acoustic-phonetic cues of words and can therefore be transferred to a foreign language with a different rhythmic class. On the other hand, if no generalization occurs, it may suggest that representation of the common stress pattern is stored along with the acoustic-prosodic cues present in speech and therefore is not transferred to an unfamiliar foreign language with a different prosodic structure. Alternatively, a preference for iambic Hebrew words but trochaic English words may suggest that when infants are presented with unfamiliar speech, their preference is based on some other nonlinguistic auditory biases.</p> <p>The primary goal of the present study was to obtain further insights into the role of language experience on stress pattern preference skills by testing infants who have been exposed to an iambic language. Specifically, the first aim of the present study was to test Hebrew-learning infants on their preference for WS versus SW Hebrew words. A secondary purpose was to test whether Hebrew-learning infants would generalize any preference for the common WS stress pattern in Hebrew to English words that belong to a different rhythmic class.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0082115515-3">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 56 infants participated in the study. Forty-five infants took part in the preference test using Hebrew SW and WS words. Fifteen infants (33%) were excluded from the study for the following reasons: crying (two infants), restlessness (11 infants), and program-running mistakes (two infants). The ages of the 30 remaining infants (14 male and 16 female) ranged from 8 months, 15 days to 10 months, 0 days (M = 9 months, 9 days, SD = 19 days). Forty-one additional infants took part in the preference test using English SW and WS words. Fifteen infants (36%) were excluded because of restlessness (10 infants), crying (two infants), and difficulties in orienting to the loudspeakers (three infants). The ages of the remaining 26 infants (15 male and 11 female) ranged from8months, 20 days to 10months, 10 days (M = 9 months, 15 days, SD = 24 days). Infants were randomly assigned to one of the two test conditions (preference using Hebrew or English words). An independent t test confirmed that the ages of the two groups of infants in the test conditions (Hebrew and English) did not differ significantly (p > .05).</p> <p>All infants came from a monolingual Hebrew-speaking environment, and Hebrew was the only language spoken by their primary caregivers. In order to establish that the infants were typically developing, their parents completed a questionnaire with detailed medical-developmental information, as well as auditory behavior and speech production questionnaires (the Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale [ITMAIS], Robbins et al., 2004; and the Production Infant Scale Evaluation [PRISE], Kishon-Rabin, Taitel baum-Swead, Ezrati-Vinacour, & Hildesheimer, 2005). Inclusion criteria included full-term at birth with an APGAR score of 9-10, normal development as reported by well-baby clinics, and ITMAIS and PRISE scores within 2 SE of normal auditory and speech production functioning (Kishon-Rabin et al., 2005). All infants passed a hearing test at well-baby clinics and had had no more than two ear infections during the prior 6 months; in addition, their parents reported no upper respiratory infections (including ear infections) on the day of testing. Infants were from upper-middle-class homes, and all parents had at least 12 years of education.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-4">Stimuli</hd> <p>The Hebrew stimuli consisted of 16 prerecorded lists of words in Hebrew. Each list included 12 different bisyllabic words. In half of the lists, the words followed a SW stress pattern; in the other half, different words followed a WS stress pattern. The SW and WS words were matched as closely as possible in their phonetic structure. All Hebrew words were meaningful but not familiar to the infants (according to corpora of child-directed speech in Hebrew1) in order not to influence preference through word familiarity.</p> <p>The English stimuli consisted of 16 prerecorded lists of words in English (Juszyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993). In half of the lists, the words followed a SW stress pattern; in the other half, different words followed a WS stress pattern. The SW and WS words were matched as closely as possible in their phonetic structure. All English words were meaningful but not familiar to infants according to Juszyk, Cutler, and Redanz (1993). The phonemes used in Hebrew and English words were legal in each language.</p> <p>Stimuli were produced by two female native speakers--a native Hebrew speaker and a native American English speaker. A total of 192 Hebrew words and 192 English words were recorded. Stimuli were digitally recorded in a soundproof room via a JVC MV 40 microphone using Sound Forge software (Version 4.5a), at a sampling rate of 48000 Hz and with 16-bit quantization. The intensity between the words did not differ by more than 0.5 dB. This intensity range was obtained by normalizing the words without changing the ratios between syllables within the words. Examples of the temporal waveforms, spectrographic displays, and intonation contours for the different stress patterns in Hebrew and English words are presented in Figure 1.</p> <p>The length of the 192 Hebrew words ranged from 370 to 920 ms (M = 652.4, SD = 122.9). Overall, SW words were longer, M = 680.31, SD = 126.17, than WS words, M = 624.47, SD = 113.47, t(<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref1">190</reflink>) = 3.22, p < .01. The length of the 192 English words ranged from 380 to 940 ms, M = 648.9, SD = 115.5. For English, as well, SW words were longer, M = 697, SD = 85, than WS words, M = 600, SD = 121, t(<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref2">190</reflink>) = 6.39, p < .01.</p> <p>The recorded words were divided into trials of 12 words with 800-ms silent intervals between the words in a trial. Each trial contained either SW or WS words in Hebrew or English separately. The duration of the Hebrew-word trials ranged from 16.94 to 18.6 s, M= 17.92, SD = 0.52. No difference in duration was found between trials of SW (trochaic) words, M = 17.92, SD = 0.62, and those with WS (iambic) words, M= 17.89, SD = 0.45, p > .05. The duration of the English-word trials ranged from 17.4 to 18 s, M = 17.6, SD = 0.19. No difference in duration was found between trials of SW(trochaic) words, M = 17.6, SD = 0.20, and those with WS (iambic) words, M = 17.6, SD = 0.18, p > .05. Also, no difference in duration was found between the Hebrew and English trials, p > .05. The fact that the trials were similar in duration across stress patterns and languages reduces the possibility that differences in duration influenced the results.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-5">Procedure</hd> <p>The Head-Turn Preference Procedure (HPP) was used to test preference of one stress pattern over the other (Kemler-Nelson et al., 1995). Infants were presented with SW and WS trials in either Hebrew or English. The infant was seated on the caregiver's lap in front of the monitor. All trials began by drawing the infant's attention to the TV monitor by using an attention-getter (e.g., a small dynamic video display of a laughing baby's face). Once the infant's attention was at midline, the attention-getter disappeared and a flashing red light at one of the two sides went on. When the infant turned his head at least 30 degrees in the direction of the loudspeaker, the auditory stimulus (trial) was presented until the infant turned away for a continuous period of at least 2 s, or until the end of the trial. The infant heard each type of stimulus (e.g., with SW or WS words) alternately from either side of the booth. Each infant first completed a four-trial familiarization phase. This phase consisted of two trials of each type (SW and WS). The purpose of the familiarization trials was to acquaint the infants with the stimuli presented from two loudspeakers.</p> <p>After the familiarization phase, a 12-trial (i.e., up to a total of 144 words) test phase was conducted. Over the series of test trials, both types of stimuli were presented alternately from both sides of the room. The order of presentations was quasirandom, with no more than three trials of the same type of stress pattern presented sequentially (Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993). The trials were presented to the infants via loudspeakers at a comfortable level of 65 dB SPL.</p> <p>Listening time was measured as looking time towards the loudspeaker. It was anticipated that if the infants showed a preference for one type of trial over another, they would exhibit longer looking times during those trials. The experimenter was seated outside the booth in the control room. Both the experimenter and the caregiver (in the booth) were listening to masking music over headphones and were therefore blind to the nature of the stimulus during a particular trial. The experimenter in the control room observed the infant's responses online, and when the infant changed his head position away from the loudspeaker, that is, turned his head to more than 30 degrees, the experimenter indicated this by keying in the response. The software written for this experiment calculated gazing times toward the loudspeakers for each infant and stimulus.</p> <p>All infant responses were videotaped for later validation (offline) by a second experimenter. Offline measures for each test trial were conducted by a graduate student from the communication disorders department who evaluated infant looking times on the basis of frame-by-frame observation using the digitized video software Supercoder (frame rate = 1/30 frames per second). She did not hear the stimuli and was naïve to the purpose of the study. Persuasive agreement was found between the online and offline evaluations for both the SW trials, r = .93, r =.96, for Hebrew and English, respectively, and the WS trials, r = .96, r = .97, for Hebrew and English, respectively. We therefore used the mean of these evaluations (online and offline) for further statistical analysis.</p> <p>The procedure was approved by the ethical committee of Tel-Aviv University and the Helsinki ethical committee of the Ministry of Health. All parents signed a consent form before their infants were tested.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-6">Results</hd> <p>The average looking times for WS and SW words in Hebrew and English are summarized in Figure 2.</p> <p>It can be seen that Hebrew-learning infants looked longer at WS Hebrew words compared to SW words. Statistical analysis with paired t test confirmed that looking time (in seconds) with WS Hebrew words, M = 5.57, SD = 2.07, was significantly longer than looking time with SW Hebrew words, M = 4.22, SD = 1.39, t(<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>) = 5.32, p = .001. A more detailed observation of the individual data showed that 24 (80%) Hebrew-learning infants had longer looking times with Hebrew WS words, M = 6.16, SD = 1.9, compared to SW words, M = 4.37, SD = 1.44, t(<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>) = 7.4, p = .001. There were, however, six (20%) Hebrew-learning infants who showed longer looking times for SW words, M = 3.60, SD = 1.05, compared to WS words, M = 3.05, SD = 1.01, t(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) = 2.93, p = .033. The differences in looking time (preference) between WS and SW stress patterns of Hebrew words for each infant are shown in Figure 3.</p> <p>From Figure 2, it can also be seen that Hebrew-learning infants looked longer at SW English words compared to WS. Statistical analysis with paired t test confirmed that looking time (in seconds) with SW English words, M= 6.37, SD= 1.92, was significantly longer than looking time with WS English words, M = 5.20, SD = 2.05, t(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>) = 3.10, p = .005. A more detailed observation of the individual data showed that 19 infants (73%) showed longer looking time with English SW words, M= 6.58, SD = 2.14, compared to WS words, M = 4.51, SD = 1.75, t(<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>) = 7.82, p < .001. There were, however, seven Hebrew-learning infants (27%) who showed a trend toward longer looking time for WS words, M = 7.06, SD = 1.66, compared to SW words, M = 5.80, SD = 1.03, t(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>) = 2.93, p = .057. The differences in looking time (preference) between WS and SW stress patterns of English words for each infant are shown in Figure 4.</p> <p>In order to compare the looking times for Hebrew and English stimuli, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was conducted. This analysis permitted us to evaluate the effect of language (Hebrew, English), type of stress pattern (SW or WS), and the interaction between the two on looking time. The results of the analysis revealed a significant Language × Stress Pattern interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>, 54) = 32.18, p < .01, supporting the observation that Hebrew-learning infants preferred WS stress patterns when presented with Hebrew words but the reversed SW stress patterns when presented with English words. A borderline main effect was found for language, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>, 54) = 3.93, p = .05, suggesting that, overall, infants listened more to English words, M = 5.57, SD = 2.07, compared to Hebrew words, M = 5.20, SD = 2.05. No significant main effect for type was found, p > .05.</p> <p>One question that arises is whether the results were influenced by learning, or, alternatively, by fatigue. This was tested by examining the data in the early versus the later trials. Two ANOVA tests were conducted to test the effects of stress pattern, earlier versus later trials (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 12), and the interaction between stress pattern and earlier versus later trials (order). These analyses were conducted separately for Hebrew and English words. In both languages, the effect of stress pattern was found significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>, 3) = 12.71, p < .01 for Hebrew, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>, 3) = 12.10, p <.01 for English, as was the effect of order, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>, 3) = 11.92, p < .01 for Hebrew, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>, 3) = 28.99, p < .01 for English. No interaction of Stress Pattern × Order was found in either language. These results suggest that although infants listened longer in the first six trials, M = 5.50, SD = 3.33 and M = 6.75, SD = 3.88 for Hebrew and English trials, respectively, compared to the last six trials, M = 4.27, SD = 3.43 and M = 4.64, SD = 3.42 for Hebrew and English trials, respectively, they also listened longer in trials with WS Hebrew words, M= 5.57, SD = 2.07, compared to trials with SW Hebrew words, M = 4.22, SD = 1.39, and to trials with SW English words, M = 6.37, SD = 1.92, compared to trials with WS English words, M= 5.20, SD = 2.05, regardless of whether the trials were presented at the beginning or the end of the test.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-7">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study shows that 9-month-old Hebrew-learning infants preferred the WS stress pattern when presented with Hebrew, an iambic language, but did not generalize this preference to a foreign language (English) with a trochaic stress pattern.</p> <p>In the remainder of the discussion we will elaborate on the possible explanations and implications of these findings in light of the distributional learning and auditory processes involved in stress pattern perception.</p> <p>The first finding is that infants showed a linguistic bias for the common stress pattern in an iambic language (Hebrew). This bias was demonstrated for 9-month-old infants but may be present at an even earlier age. These results are in keeping with the hypothesis that infants learn the distribution of the common stress pattern in their language, as was found for trochaic languages (Höhle et al., 2009; Jusczyk, Cutler, & Redanz, 1993; Pons & Bosch, 2010). These findings also add to the body of literature showing distributional learning of specific speech features in various linguistic domains. For example, infants showed sensitivity to allophonic variations produced in and between words (Jusczyk, Hohne, & Bauman, 1999). They also preferred familiar phonotactic patterns in their own language (Jusczyk, Friederici, Wessels, Svenkerud, & Jusczyk, 1993; Jusczyk, Luce, & Charles-Luce, 1994; Mattys, Jusczyk, Luce, & Morgan, 1999; see also Friederici & Wessels, 1993, for Dutch, and Sebastián-Gallé s & Bosch, 2002, for Catalan and Spanish) and learned distributional information of syllabic sequences (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996) as well as stress patterns in an artificial language (Thiessen & Saffran, 2007).</p> <p>Although the data reported here support the statistical learning of frequent patterns in a language, one cannot rule out the possibility that Hebrew-learning infants preferred the WS stress pattern because of specific acoustic cues. In order to assess this possibility, acoustic measurements (duration and maximum peak for pitch and amplitude) were obtained for each syllable (results are shown in Tables A1-A4 in the Appendix). In both WS and SW words, the stressed syllable was characterized by increased duration, amplitude, and pitch. We then compared the differences between the strong and weak syllables in the different stress patterns (Table A2). The difference in duration between the two syllables was significantly longer for the WS words compared to the SW words. The differences in amplitude and pitch, however, were significantly greater in the SW words. Thus, it might be the case that durational variations between the weak and stressed syllables made the WS stress pattern perceptually more appealing to infants compared to the SW one.</p> <p>The possibility that differences in duration may have driven distributional learning of the WS stress pattern in Hebrew-learning infants is supported by studies on the iambic/trochaic law, which looked at the effect of duration of tones on grouping of nonlinguistic sequences (Hay & Diehl, 2007; Tyler & Cutler, 2009). In one study, English-learning infants age 7-8 months, whose native language involves final phrasal lengthening, used durational cues for grouping and consequently demonstrated preference of complex-tone sequences; Japanese-learning infants, whose native language does not include final phrasal lengthening, did not demonstrate such a tendency (Yoshida et al., 2010). Thus the finding that in an iambic language like Hebrew, the common WS sequences may demonstrate larger differences in duration compared to the SW ones supports the possibility that acoustic cues are intertwined with distributional learning (Segal et al., 2009).</p> <p>A second major finding of the present study is that 9-month-old Hebrew-learning infants did not generalize the preference for WS words when presented with American English words. Instead, infants presented with an unfamiliar trochaic language preferred the words with the SW stress pattern, which is the uncommon one in their native language. This suggests that infants' representation of stress patterns is tied to the acoustic characteristics of stressed and unstressed syllables that are specific to their native language (Curtin et al., 2005; Goldinger, 1998). Support for this hypothesis is found in a recent study that suggests that segmentation procedures are not automatically transferred to a foreign language with a different rhythmical structure and common stress pattern (Polka & Sundara, 2011).Canadian infants at age 8 months showed difficulties in segmenting bisyllabic words in a foreign language (English or French) that differs from their native language in its rhythmical structure and common stress pattern, even though they could segment words in their native language (Polka & Sundara, 2011; see also Houston et al., 2000, and Pelucchi, Hay, & Saffran, 2009, for evidence of successful segmentation in a foreign language with a similar rhythmical class or stress position).</p> <p>Additional evidence suggests that infants are sensitive not only to the distribution of stress in their language but also to the phonological structure in which stress may appear. Spanish, for example, is a syllable-timed language with a higher proportion of trochees over iambs (60% and 40%, respectively) and in which the phonological structure of the syllable governs lexical stress assignment. Spanish-learning infants at age 9 months showed a listening preference for the highly frequent trochaic stress pattern in CVC.CV structures but a preference for the frequent iambic pattern in CV. CVC structures. They also showed no clear preference for either the iambic or trochaic stress pattern in CV. CV structures of nonsense words. These findings suggest that Spanish-learning infants are sensitive to both stress and the phonological structure of the syllable, showing a trochaic bias only when stress is assigned to a CVC syllable (Pons & Bosch, 2010). In Hebrew, the phonological structure of the syllable does not govern lexical stress assignment. It still might be the case, however, that other acoustic-prosodic cues constrain the ability of infants to generalize their preference for WS stress patterns from Hebrew to English. For example, the acoustic cues for stressed and unstressed syllables are carried in the vowels of the word. If representation of stress patterns is tangled up with the acoustic characteristics for a vowel, then differences in the acoustic parameters of vowels between Hebrew and English may limit the ability of infants to generalize their stress pattern representation from one language to another (Most, Amir, & Tobin, 2000).</p> <p>Another possible explanation for the findings that Hebrew-learning infants prefer the SW stress pattern in English words but the WS stress pattern in Hebrew words is based on the differences in the acoustic characteristics of stress patterns in the Hebrew and English words (see Tables A1-A4). In English SW words, duration, amplitude, and fundamental frequency follow the same acoustic pattern, that is, an increase in the stressed syllable followed by a decrease in the unstressed syllable. This pattern was not consistent in the WS words. Duration and amplitude increased in the stressed syllable but fundamental frequency tended to decrease. In fact, WS words showed a negative difference for pitch, suggesting that the unstressed syllables had higher pitch than stressed syllables (at least in some of the WS words). In Hebrew words, however, the stressed syllable was consistently marked by increased duration, pitch, and amplitude in both the WS and the SW stress patterns. Infants presented with WS English words were thus presented with conflicting cues for stress: Amplitude and duration were higher in the stressed syllable, but pitch was inconsistent and tended to be higher in the weak syllable. These conflicting cues, which do not exist in the Hebrew words, may have made the English WS pattern less attractive in comparison to the consistent cues of the English SW pattern. Further research is needed in order to determine whether and how conflicting acoustic cues influence stress pattern perception. It may be that that when infants have no experience with a specific language, their preference is guided mainly by the saliency of acoustic cues.</p> <p>In sum, the findings of the present study suggest that exposure to the native Hebrew language enables infants to recognize the common iambic stress. We raise the possibility that durational acoustic cues may drive distributional learning of the common stress pattern of the Hebrew language. Taking into consideration the results from English, German, Spanish, French, and Hebrew, our conclusion is that in languages in which stress is not fixed and is used to distinguish between words, infants learn the common stress pattern of their language by age 9 months or earlier, whether the common stress pattern of the language is SW or WS. The results of the present study also suggest that learning of the common stress pattern of the native language may be tied to the acoustic-prosodic characteristics of that language and is not transferred automatically to a foreign language with different acoustic-prosodic characteristics.</p> <p>This study has implications for segmentation procedures. It is plausible to assume that distributional learning of the common iambic pattern may influence segmentation procedures (e.g., Thiessen & Saffran, 2007). Furthermore, in syllable-timed languages such as French, Spanish, and Catalan, segmentation of bisyllabic words involves the syllable unit in both adults and infants (e.g., Cutler, Mehler, Norris, & Segui, 1986; Nazzi et al., 2006; Peretz, Lussier, & Béland, 1998; Sebastián-Gallés, Dupoux, Segui, & Mehler, 1992), whereas in stress-timed languages such as English and German, segmentation begins with the SW trochaic unit (Houston et al., 2000; Jusczyk et al., 1999). Hebrew, however, is not a syllable-timed language, and its common prosodic pattern is WS (Becker, 2003; Segal et al., 2009). Thus, it is not clear which unit Hebrew-learning infants use for segmentation. It is possible that Hebrew-learning infants initially segment WS portions; or, alternatively, they may use the stressed syllable as a cue for word endings. This needs to be explored in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-8">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We gratefully acknowledge Esther Shabtai for assistance with the statistical analysis and the infants and their parents for their participation. This study was supported by Grant No. 6438-6 from the Public Committee for Allocation of Estate Funds, Ministry of Health, Israel, and by the Binational Science Foundation (BSF) Ref. #2007341.</p> <ref id="AN0082115515-9"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>The corpora contain 228, 946 Hebrew tokens (words) and 8, 075 types taken from child-directed speech in the Berman Longitudinal corpus, which includes four longitudinal data sets (a total of 392 sessions) collected as part of a cross-linguistic project headed by Ruth Berman of Tel-Aviv University (1988-1991), and from the Ravid corpus longitudinal sample (19 sessions) collected by Dorit Ravid, Tel-Aviv University, including speech directed to two of her children (1980-1985). </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Figure 1. Top panel: Temporal waveforms, spectrograms, and pitch contours of two Hebrew test tokens, the weak-strong (WS) word /maná/ ("a piece") and the strong-weak (SW) word /náar/ ("young male"). Bottom panel: Temporal waveforms, spectrograms, and pitch contours of two English test tokens, the WS word /abeám/ and the SW word /bévear/. Note that the waveforms show variation in overall amplitude (in relative units) over time (in seconds).</p> <p>Figure 2. Mean looking times (in seconds) and standard errors for strong-weak and weak-strong Hebrew and English words.</p> <p>Figure 3. Individual listening preference (in seconds) for weak-strong Hebrew words.</p> <p>Figure 4. Individual listening preference (in seconds) for strong-weak English words.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-10">References</hd> <p>Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Chicago, IL: Aldine.</p> <p>Allen, G. D., & Hawkins, S. (1978). The development of phonological rhythm. In A. Bell & J. B. Hooper (Eds.), Syllables and segments (pp. 173-185). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.</p> <p>Allen, G. D., & Hawkins, S. (1980). Phonological rhythm: Definition and development. Child Phonology, 1, 227-256.</p> <p>Becker, M. (2003). Hebrewstress: Can't you hear those trochees? In E. Kaiser & S. Arunachalm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 45-58). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.</p> <p>Bolozky, S. (1982). Remarks on rhythmic stress in Modern Hebrew. Linguistics, 18, 275-289.</p> <p>Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). Native-language recognition abilities in 4-month-old infants from monolingual and bilingual environments. Cognition, 65, 33-69.</p> <p>Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy, 2, 29-49.</p> <p>Curtin, S., Mintz, T. H., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Stress changes the representational landscape: Evidence from word segmentation. Cognition, 96, 233-262.</p> <p>Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385-400.</p> <p>Dell, F., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1984). Les développements récents en phonologie: Quelques idées centrales [Recent developments in phonology: Main ideas]. In F. Dell, D. Hirst, & J.-R. Vergnaud (Eds.), Forme sonore du langage (pp. 1-42). Paris, France: Hermann.</p> <p>Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastian, N., & Mehler, J. (1997). A destressing "deafness" in French? Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 406-421.</p> <p>Echols, C. H., Crowhurst, M. J., & Childers, J. B. (1997). The perception of rhythmic units in speech by infants and adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 202-225.</p> <p>Echols, C. H., & Newport, E. L. (1992). The role of stress and position in determining first words. Language Acquisition, 2, 189-220.</p> <p>Friederici, A. D., Friedrich, M., & Christophe, A. (2007). Brain responses in 4-month-old infants are already language specific. Current Biology, 17, 1208-1211.</p> <p>Friederici, A. D., & Wessels, J. M. I. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 287-295.</p> <p>Gleitman, L. R., & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: The state of the state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. R.</p> <p>Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 3-48). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.</p> <p>Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.</p> <p>Goyet, L., de Schonen, S., & Nazzi, T. (2010). Words and syllables in fluent speech segmentation by French-learning infants: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1332, 75-89.</p> <p>Hay, J. S. F., & Diehl, R. L. (2007). Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the iambic/trochaic law. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 113-122.</p> <p>Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</p> <p>Höhle, B., Bijeljac-Babic, R., Herold, B., Weissenborn, J., & Nazzi, T. (2009). The development of language specific prosodic preferences during the first half year of life: Evidence from German and French. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 262-274.</p> <p>Houston, D. M., Jusczyk, P.W., Kuijpers, C., Coolen, R., & Cutler, A. (2000). Cross-language word segmentation by 9-month-olds. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 504-509.</p> <p>Houston, D. M., Santelmann, L. M., & Jusczyk, P.W. (2004). English-learning infants' segmentation of trisyllabic words from fluent speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 97-136.</p> <p>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, 458-567.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P. W., & Aslin, R. (1995). Infants' detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 1-23.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants' preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64, 675-687.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P.W., Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J.M., Svenkerud, V. Y., & Jusczyk, A. M. (1993). Infants' sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 402-420.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P.W., Hohne, E. A., & Bauman, A. (1999). Infants' sensitivity to allophonic cues for word segmentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1465-1476.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M., & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 159-207.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630-645.</p> <p>Jusczyk, P. W., & Thompson, E. J. (1978). Perception of a phonetic contrast in multisyllabic utterances by two-month-old infants. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 105-109.</p> <p>Kemler-Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P.W., Mandel, D.R., Myers, J., Turk, A., & Gerken, L. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior & Development, 18, 111-116.</p> <p>Kishon-Rabin, L., Taitelbaum-Swead, R., Ezrati-Vinacour, R., & Hildesheimer, M. (2005). Prelexical vocalization in normal hearing and hearing-impaired infants before and after cochlear implantation and its relation to early auditory skills. Ear and Hearing, 26, 17S-29S.</p> <p>Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 465-494.</p> <p>Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P. W., Lambertz, G., Halstead, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29, 143-178.</p> <p>Moon, C., Cooper, R. P., & Fifer, W. P. (1993). Two-day-olds prefer their native language. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 495-500.</p> <p>Morgan, J. L., & Saffran, J. R. (1995). Emerging integration of sequential and suprasegmental formation in preverbal speech segmentation. Child Development, 66, 911-936.</p> <p>Most, T., Amir, O., & Tobin, Y. (2000). The Hebrew vowel system: Raw and normalized acoustic data. Language and Speech, 43, 295-308.</p> <p>Nazzi, T., Bertoncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1998). Language discrimination by newborns: Toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 756-766.</p> <p>Nazzi, T., Dilley, L. C., Jusczyk, A. M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2005). English-learning infants' segmentation of verbs from fluent speech. Language and Speech, 48, 279-298.</p> <p>Nazzi, T., Iakimova, G., Bertoncini, J., Frédonie, S., & Alcantara, C. (2006). Early segmentation of fluent speech by infants acquiring French: Emerging evidence for cross-linguistic differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 283-299.</p> <p>Nazzi, T., Jusczyk, P.W., & Johnson, E. K. (2000). Language discrimination by English-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 1-19.</p> <p>Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants. Child Development, 80, 674-685.</p> <p>Peretz, I., Lussier, I., & Béland, R. (1998). The differential role of syllabic structure in stem completion for French and English. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-112.</p> <p>Pike, K. L. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.</p> <p>Polka, L., & Sundara, M. (2011).Word segmentation in monolingual infants acquiring Canadian English and Canadian French: Native languages, cross-dialect, and cross-language comparisons. Infancy. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00075.x Pons, F., & Bosch, L. (2010). Stress pattern preference in Spanish-learning infants: The role of syllable weight. Infancy, 15, 223-245.</p> <p>Ramus, F., Hauser, M. D., Miller, C., Morris, D., & Mehler, J. (2000, April 14). Language discrimination by human newborns and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Science, 288, 349-351.</p> <p>Ramus, F., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (1999). Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73, 265-292.</p> <p>Robbins, A. M., Koch, D. B., Osberger, M. J., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2004). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on auditory skill development in infants and toddlers. Archives of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery, 130, 570-574.</p> <p>Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996, December 13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.</p> <p>Sansavini, A., Bertoncini, J., & Giovanelli, G. (1997). Newborns discriminate the rhythm of multisyllabic stressed words. Developmental Psychology, 33, 3-11.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Sebastián-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1992). Contrasting syllabic effects in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 18-32.</p> <p>Segal, O., Nir-Sagiv, B., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Ravid, D. (2009). Prosodic patterns in Hebrew child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language, 36, 629-656.</p> <p>Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., … Peperkamp, S. (2009). Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science, 12, 914-919.</p> <p>Spring, D. R., & Dale, P. S. (1977). Discrimination of linguistic stress in early infancy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 224-232.</p> <p>Thiessen, E. D., & Saffran, J. R. (2007). Learning to learn: Infants' acquisition of stress-based strategies for word segmentation. Language Learning and Development, 3, 73-100.</p> <p>Trainor, L. J., & Adams, B. (2000). Infants' and adults' use of duration and intensity cues in the segmentation of tone patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 333-340.</p> <p>Turk, A. E., Jusczyk, P.W., & Gerken, L. (1995). Do English-learning infants use syllable weight to determine stress? Language and Speech, 38, 143-158.</p> <p>Tyler, M. D., & Cutler, A. (2009). Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 367-376.</p> <p>van Ooijen, B., Bertoncini, J., Sansavini, A., & Mehler, J. (1997). Do weak syllables count for newborns? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3735-3741.</p> <p>Weber, C., Hahne, A., Friedrich, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Discrimination of word stress in early infant perception: Electrophysiological evidence. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 149-161.</p> <p>Woodrow, H. (1951). Time perception. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1224-1236). New York, NY: Wiley.</p> <p>Yoshida, K. A., Iversen, J. R., Patel, A. D., Mazuka, R., Nito, H., Gervain, J., & Werker, J. F. (2010). The development of perceptual grouping biases in infancy: A Japanese-English cross linguistic study. Cognition, 115, 356-361.</p> <hd id="AN0082115515-11">Appendix (p. 1 of 2).Acoustic measurements for vowels in Hebrew and English words</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0082115515-12">Table A1. Acoustic measurements of vowels in strong-weak (SW) and weak-strong (WS) Hebrew words: Means and SDs of duration (ms) and of maximum amplitude (relative units [RU]) and pitch (Hz) at the center of stressed and weak vowels</hd> <ct id="AN0082115515-13"> Legend for Chart: A - Acoustic measurement B - Hebrew SW words Strong syllable C - Hebrew SW words Weak syllable D - Hebrew WS words Strong syllable E - Hebrew WS words Weak syllable A B C D E Duration (ms) M 117.18 87.39 115.93 60.00 SD 29.15 25.09 24.34 13.68 t (95) =10.38** t (95)=21.4** Amplitude (RU) M 81.31 75.90 81.27 78.97 SD 1.98 2.10 1.77 2.55 t(95) =24.5** t (95)= 8.32** Pitch (Hz) M 213.65 172.11 207.09 196.18 SD 10.9 15.96 12.34 18.14 t (95) = 22.45** t (95)= 4.83** ** p<.01.</ct> <hd id="AN0082115515-14">Table A2. Difference in duratio n (ms), pitch (Hz), and amplitude (RU) between the strong and weak syllables for SW and WS Hebrew words, and t-test results for comparisons between words.</hd> <ct id="AN0082115515-15"> Acoustic measurement SW WS t (190) Significance Duration (ms) 29.79 55.93 6.7 p<.01 Amplitude (RU) 5.42 2.29 8.83 p<.01 Pitch (Hz) 41.54 10.91 10.49 p<.01</ct> <hd id="AN0082115515-16">Appendix (p. 2 of 2). Acoustic measurements for vowels in Hebrew and English words.</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0082115515-17">Table A3. Acoustic measurements of vowels in SW and WS English words: Means and standard deviations of durations(ms) and of maximum amplitude (RU) and pitch (Hz) at the center of stressed and weak vowels</hd> <ct id="AN0082115515-18"> Legend for Chart: A - Acoustic measurement B - English SW words Strong syllable C - English SW words Weak syllable D - English WS words Strong syllable E - English WS words Weak syllable A B C D E Duration (ms) M 121.66 97.28 152.92 56.15 SD 35.12 41.53 60.14 18.97 t (95)= 5.63** t(95) = 16.38** Amplitude (RU) M 81.93 74.11 80.54 78.71 SD 1.23 2.59 1.84 3.50 t (95)= 30.4** t (95)= 4.07** Pitch (Hz) M 250.54 210.65 233.28 236.35 SD 16.17 26.54 14.76 21.59 t (95) = 12.96** t (95)= 1.15** ** p<.01.</ct> <hd id="AN0082115515-19">Table A 4. Difference in duration (ms), pitch (Hz), and amplitude (RU) between the strong and weak syllables for SW and WS English words, and t-test results for comparisons between words.</hd> <ct id="AN0082115515-20"> Acoustic measurements SW WS t (190) Significance Duration (ms) 24.38 96.76 9.73 p <.01 Amplitude (RU) 7.85 1.82 11.66 p <.01 Pitch (Hz) 39.61 -3.07 10.75 p <.01</ct> <aug> <p>By Osnat Segala, Tel-Aviv University, Israel, segalll@netvision.net.il; Liat Kishon-Rabina, Tel-Aviv University, Israel; Sid Bacon, Editor and Lynne Werner, Associate Editor</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib190" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ984826
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evidence for Language-Specific Influence on the Preference of Stress Patterns in Infants Learning an Iambic Language (Hebrew)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Segal%2C+Osnat%22">Segal, Osnat</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kishon-Rabin%2C+Liat%22">Kishon-Rabin, Liat</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Speech%2C+Language%2C+and+Hearing+Research%22"><i>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research</i></searchLink>. Oct 2012 55(5):1329-1341.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: 800-638-8255; Fax: 301-571-0457; e-mail: subscribe@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.asha.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semitic+Languages%22">Semitic Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Infants%22">Infants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Suprasegmentals%22">Suprasegmentals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recognition+%28Psychology%29%22">Recognition (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0087)
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1092-4388
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: The ability of infants to develop recognition of a common stress pattern that is language specific has been tested mainly in trochaic languages with a strong-weak (SW) stress pattern. The goals of the present study were: (a) to test Hebrew-learning infants on their stress pattern preference in the Hebrew language, for which the weak-strong (WS) stress pattern is the common one, and (b) to test whether the infants would generalize any preference for the common stress pattern in Hebrew to English words, which belong to a different rhythmic class. Method: Fifty-six 9-month-old Hebrew-learning infants were tested on their preference for SW and WS stress patterns using Hebrew and English bisyllabic words with the Head-Turn Preference Procedure. Results: The infants showed preference for WS Hebrew words but not for SW English words. Conclusion: Hebrew-learning infants recognize the common stress pattern in their native language, supporting language-specific distributional learning by infants. This recognition, however, is not generalized to a foreign language with different prosodic characteristics.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ984826
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ984826
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0087)
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1329
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Semitic Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Infants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Suprasegmentals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recognition (Psychology)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evidence for Language-Specific Influence on the Preference of Stress Patterns in Infants Learning an Iambic Language (Hebrew)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Segal, Osnat
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kishon-Rabin, Liat
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1092-4388
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1