Content uploaded by Kalim Gonzales
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kalim Gonzales on May 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
RUNNING HEAD: HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 1
IN PRESS: COGNITION
Does hearing two dialects at different times help infants learn dialect-specific rules?
Kalim Gonzales, LouAnn Gerken, Rebecca L. Gómez
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, The University of Arizona
Author Note
Kalim Gonzales, The Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of
Foreign Studies§.
LouAnn Gerken, Department of Psychology, The University of Arizona*.
Rebecca L. Gómez, Department of Psychology, The University of Arizona*.
§Baiyu Dadao #2, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510420, China.
*Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kalim Gonzales, The Center for
Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou,
Baiyun Dadao North #2, Guangzhou, 510420, China.
E-mail: kalimg@gdufs.edu.cn
Office: +86-20-36618025
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 2
Abstract
Infants might be better at teasing apart dialects with different language rules when
hearing the dialects at different times, since language learners do not always combine input
heard at different times. However, no previous research has independently varied the temporal
distribution of conflicting language input. Twelve-month-olds heard two artificial language
streams representing different dialects—a “pure stream” whose sentences adhered to abstract
grammar rules like aX bY, and a “mixed stream” wherein any a- or b-word could precede any
X- or Y-word. Infants were then tested for generalization of the pure stream’s rules to novel
sentences. Supporting our hypothesis, infants showed generalization when the two streams’
sentences alternated in minutes-long intervals without any perceptually salient change across
streams (Experiment 2), but not when all sentences from these same streams were randomly
interleaved (Experiment 3). Results are interpreted in light of temporal context effects in word
learning.
Keywords: rule learning, dynamic change, memory development
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 3
Does hearing two dialects at different times help infants learn dialect-specific rules?
1. Introduction
Infants commonly hear more than one dialect of their native language, such as a standard
variety of the language spoken on nationally broadcasted television shows and a nonstandard
variety spoken in the local community. Though typically mutually intelligible, dialects have
distinct vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar rules. Infants exposed to more than one dialect
thus receive conflicting information about appropriate language usage.
Regarding grammar rules, for example, varieties of Standard English have subject-verb
agreement rules that some nonstandard varieties lack. In standard varieties, the main verb of a
sentence should typically take a different form when the subject is plural than when singular.
Thus, whereas when the subject is singular (e.g., The dog) the verb to be in simple tense should
typically be is or was (e.g., The dog is/was fast), when plural (e.g., The dogs) it should typically
be are or were (e.g., The dogs are/were fast). In some varieties of nonstandard English (e.g.,
Appalachian English), in contrast, the main verb can typically take the same form when the
subject is plural as when singular, such that The dogs is/was fast is grammatical (see Hazen,
2014). This means that infants hearing both Standard English and one of these nonstandard
varieties receive conflicting information regarding what form a sentence’s main verb can take
when the subject is plural rather than singular. How do infants extract the rules of one particular
dialect of their native language when another heard dialect lacks those rules?
1.2. Combining dialects
One possibility is that infants combine information about rules across dialects to discover
general tendencies across all utterances in their native language input, irrespective of dialect.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 4
Consequently, infants’ ability to learn the rules unique to a particular dialect depends on whether
they can learn those rules from statistical averages across dialects. For example, whether infants
converge on the rule that a sentence whose subject is plural must have a main verb that is also
plural depends on whether the average probability of those units occurring together is
sufficiently high across dialects. If this is true, infants’ ability to extract dialect-specific rules
might be rather limited, since infants show only moderate tolerance for noisy language input.
There is certainly evidence that in the rare case where children receive grammatically
inconsistent input exclusively from nonnative speakers, they do not represent this input
veridically but rather impose consistency onto it, such that their own speech actually boasts more
nativelike consistency than that of their language models (Hudson-Kam & Newport, 2005; 2009;
Ross & Newport, 1996; Senghas & Coppola, 2001; Singleton & Newport, 2004). However, the
rules to which these children adhere do not always exist in the target language but may be of the
children’s own invention. Indeed, young learners may not even discriminate between rules in the
target language and alternative rules if the former are violated too much. Gómez and Lakusta
(2004) familiarized 12-month-olds with an artificial language containing rules such as aX bY,
where the a- and b-categories comprised high frequency words and the X- and Y-categories
lower frequency words distinguished by syllable length. Infants discriminated the language’s
target rules from opposite rules (e.g., aY bX) if only 0% or 17% of familiarization sentences
conformed to the latter but not if 33% did so.
1.3. Separating dialects due to salient perceptual differences between them
Rather than infants’ ability to extract the rules of a particular dialect hinging on whether
they can extract those rules from statistical averages across dialects, infants might be able to
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 5
compute statistics more conducive to learning individual dialects. For example, due to infants’
sensitivity to differences in the rhythmic properties of two dialects (Molnar, Gervain, Carreiras,
& 2013), or differences in the talker characteristics of the people speaking those dialects
(Schmale & Seidl, 2009), infants might computationally separate them. Returning to our
subject-verb agreement example, infants might compute within each dialect separately co-
occurrence statistics between plural subjects and plural versus singular forms of the main verb.
Indeed, it is often similarly suggested that bilingual learners separate their two languages based
on salient perceptual differences between them such as linguistic rhythm or talker voice (e.g.,
Byers-Heinlein, Burns, & Werker, 2010; Curtin, Byers-Heinlein, & Werker, 2011; Mitchel &
Weiss, 2010; Nazzi, Bertoncini, & Mehler, 1998; Ramus & Mehler, 1999; Sundara & Scutellaro,
2011; Weiss, Gerfen, & Mitchel, 2009; see Byers-Heinlein, 2014). Experimental support comes
from Weiss et al. (2009), who familiarized adults with two artificial languages alternating in 2
minute periods. Each language consisted of a stream of words whose boundaries were defined
statistically: Adjacent syllables and phonemes had lower co-occurrence probabilities when
spanning words than when falling within them. However, the boundaries in one language
conflicted with those in the other. Results showed that adults recognized words from both
languages only when the languages were spoken in different voices. Without this indexical cue,
they recognized words from only one language, or from neither. The authors argued that the
indexical cue helped adults pull out words from both languages by enabling them to compute
statistics within each language separately, as opposed to combining statistics across them.
1.4. Separating dialects due to their temporal separation
Despite considerable interest in the notion that salient perceptual dimensions like talker
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 6
voice help infants tease apart conflicting language input, infants might not necessarily rely on
such dimensions so long as two languages or dialects are already contextually distinguished in
terms of when they are spoken. Evidence is mounting that language learners are sensitive to the
dynamics of their input such that they sometimes separate statistics heard at different times.
Gebhart, Aslin, and Newport (2009) examined the conditions under which learners confronted
with a change in language structure after a period of time can represent both the initial and
subsequent structure. The authors presented two artificial languages in immediate succession,
the first for 5 minutes and the second for the same duration or longer. As in Weiss et al. (2009),
statistical cues to word boundaries conflicted across languages. Results showed that adults were
able to segment the first language regardless of whether they segmented the second, which they
segmented only when its duration was longer or when instructed that two languages would be
presented and the language transition was marked by a pause. The authors suggested that since
first language learning did not depend on second language learning, the languages were
represented independently. One reason adults in Gebhart et al. (2009) might not have combined
languages as in Weiss et al. (2009) is that the first language’s initial period was comparatively
longer (5 minutes rather than 2), which might have permitted representation of it strong enough
to resist combining with the second language. Regardless, Gebhart et al.’s (2009) results suggest
that hearing two dialects at different times might be helpful for teasing them apart to learn
dialect-specific rules. Note, though, that learners might have more difficulty learning rules
unique to the second than the first of two dialects, given Gebhart et al.’s order effect.
Young infants might be especially sensitive to the occurrence of conflicting language
input in different temporal contexts given recent evidence that the temporal range over which
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 7
they integrate statistical information is subject to memory limitations. Vlach and Johnson (2013)
compared 16- and 20-month-olds on a cross-situational word learning task in which a word’s
referent could be learned only by integrating word-object co-occurrences across multiple
individually ambiguous scenes. Results showed that although 20-month-olds were able to
integrate 6 word-object pairings whether these were presented successively for roughly half a
minute or instead spread out over roughly 3 minutes with largely irrelevant pairings interleaved,
16-month-olds integrated the pairings only across the shorter period. After ruling out attentional
factors, the authors argued that 16-month-olds did not aggregate word-object pairings across the
longer period like 20-month-olds because they had not yet developed the memory capacity to do
so. Like Gebhart et al.’s (2009) results, then, these results suggest that learners might sometimes
separate statistical information received at one time from that at another and thus that hearing
two dialects at different times might be helpful for learning dialect-specific rules. However,
whereas it is possible that adults in Gebhart et al. (2009) separated the two languages due to
strong representation of the first one, Vlach and Johnson’s (2013) results suggest that in early
infancy at least, learners might separate conflicting language input heard at different times
simply because the window over which they integrate statistical information is subject to
memory limitations. This possibility is consistent with the general view that infants’ memory
limitations can in certain cases actually facilitate language learning (Elman, 1993; Newport,
1990). To our knowledge, however, this view has not been considered with respect to the
challenge of teasing apart conflicting sources of language input, such as different languages or
dialects.
1.5. The present study
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 8
The aim of the present study was to investigate the possibility that hearing two dialects at
different times can help young infants learn dialect specific rules, independent of a salient
perceptual cue. Our experiments extend Gómez and Lakusta’s (2004) artificial language
paradigm with 12-month-olds. Importantly, this language’s rules, such as aX bY, resemble
natural language rules in that they permit generalization to novel utterances. Recall that the X-
and Y-words differ in syllable length (they are monosyllabic and disyllabic, respectively). This
means that the rules are cued by underlying morphophonological relations between the a- and b-
words on the one hand and the syllable length of the X- and Y-words on the other, permitting
generalization of the rules to sentences with novel X- and Y-words that retain their syllable
length distinction. An example of generalizing rules in Standard English based on underlying
sound patterns is recognizing subject-verb number agreement in Some feps are fast but not in
*Some feps is fast. Even though the plural subject Some feps in these sentences is novel, its
plurality is cued by the adjective some and the suffix –s (Some feps). So a learner who has
formed associations between plural subject cues and plural rather than singular forms of the main
verb can tell that some feps goes with the plural are in the first sentence but not with the singular
is in the second.
Across three experiments, we familiarized 12-month-olds with two alternating speech
streams representing different dialects of the artificial language. In a “pure stream”, all sentences
conformed to rules such as aX bY. In a “mixed stream”, any a- or b-word could precede any X-
or Y-word, and thus sentences supported the pure stream’s rules no more often than they did
opposite rules (e.g., aY bX). The artificial language was played over loudspeakers while the
infant explored a playroom environment. Foreshadowing Experiment 1, results established that
at the very least, infants are capable of extracting the pure steam’s rules when the two streams
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES 9
are presented not only at different times but also in different voices. The results further
suggested no effect of stream order. Following up, two additional experiments examined
whether presenting the exact same streams at different times (Experiment 2) rather than in
interleaved fashion (Experiment 3) permits infants to extract the pure stream’s rules independent
of the talker voice cue. In all experiments, we tested whether infants extracted the pure stream’s
rules such that they could generalize them to conforming sentences with novel X- and Y-words,
using a variation of the Head-turn Preference Procedure administered after familiarization
(Kemler Nelson et al., 1995). Generalization was operationalized as a significant difference in
listening time to sentences composed of the exact same words but conforming to opposite rules.
Our study bears some resemblance to previous language learning studies that alternated
two input streams dynamically (Weiss et al., 2009; Gebhart et al., 2009), but owing to our
interest in whether hearing two dialects at different times facilitates rule dialect-specific rule
learning in infancy, it differs in three notable ways. First, we test infants rather than adults.
Second, our streams consist of sentences generated from abstract rules (i.e., aX bY and aY bX),
whereas these previous studies’ streams consisted of word sequences generated from stimulus-
specific co-occurrence statistics (i.e., transitional probabilities between specific syllables).
Accordingly, our study uniquely asks whether learners can generalize regularities to test strings
with novel elements. Finally, our study includes two experiments that are identical except for
whether speech streams are slowly alternated or randomly interleaved. Given these previous
studies’ different research aims, they did not likewise vary independently whether streams were
separated in time. Weiss et al. alternated their streams only in 2-minute intervals. Gebhart et al.
varied whether their second language was 5 minutes like the first or was longer, but this
manipulation simultaneously changed the relative amount of exposure to each language. Further,
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
10
although one can infer as we have above that the streams’ slow alternation (irrespective of the
second stream’s duration) was what enabled adults to represent the languages separately, one
cannot be certain that interleaving the two languages would not have yielded a statistically
equivalent learning outcome1.
2. Experiment 1
Experiment 1 tested whether 12-month-olds can extract the pure stream’s rules when this
stream is presented not only at different times but also in different voices. In principle, infants
might be better at extracting the pure stream’s rules from this particular stream when it is
differentiated from the mixed stream along the voice dimension, the temporal dimension, or
both. Differentiating the two speech streams along both dimensions in this initial experiment was
thus a conservative attempt to establish that infants can extract the pure stream’s rules from our
bi-dialectal input under at least some circumstances. To present the two streams at different
times, we alternated them every 4 minutes. Each 4 minute period of the pure stream provided an
opportunity to extract this stream’s rules from the consistent support therein exclusively, as 12-
month-olds in Gómez and Lakusta (2004) extracted rules consistently supported throughout a
familiarization phase under 4 minutes. We counterbalanced stream order to examine whether,
compatible with Gebhart et al.’s (2009) order effect, infants represent the first presented stream
more strongly than the second.
1 This possibility might seem unlikely given Gebhart et al.’s order effect, but this effect might
simply reflect a bias to learn the particular language presented first, regardless of its temporal
order relative to the language presented second. The authors showed that both languages were
equally learnable in isolation, but this does not mean that they were equally learnable when
alternated, as adults in Weiss et al. (2009) showed a bias to learn one of two alternated languages
that were equally learnable in isolation.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
11
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Participants were 16 infants (5 females) with a mean age of 12.23 months (range: 11.6-
12.8 months) from the local Tucson area, recruited through birth announcements published in the
local newspaper and through various informational fairs such as the Tucson Baby Fair. We
tested the same age group as Gómez and Lakusta (2004) for greater confidence in our predictions
derived from this previous study’s results. To be included in this and all subsequent
experiments, infants needed to complete at least 4 test trials, to have no family history of speech
or language therapy, to have a birth weight of at least 5.8 ounces, to have a birth term of at least
37 weeks, and to be from a predominantly English-speaking household, with no more than 10
hours of exposure to a non-English language each week. Twelve additional infants participated
but were excluded from data analyses due to technical difficulties (5), a history of language
therapy in the immediate family (3), an ear infection (3), or restlessness during testing (1).
2.1.2. Stimuli
Our artificial language stimuli retained key features of Gómez and Lakusta’s (2004)
stimuli. First, our pure and mixed speech streams representing different dialects of this language
contained a- and b-categories variably instantiated by 2 words each and X- and Y-categories by 6
words each, as shown in Figure 1 (top panel). Second, we counterbalanced across infants
whether the target rules, in this study the pure stream’s rules, were aX bY or aY bX. Third, the
X- and Y-words were distinguished by syllable length (monosyllabic versus disyllabic) so that
the target rules contained underlying relations between the a- and b-words on the one hand and
the syllable length of the X- and Y-words on the other. These rules resemble dependencies in
natural language between high and low frequency grammatical units. In Standard English, for
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
12
example, high frequency singular and plural forms of the verb to be (e.g., is/was versus
are/were) are paired respectively with lower frequency singular and plural sentence subjects
(e.g., A dog versus Some dogs), and these agreement rules are cued by underlying sound patterns
(A dogØ is/was versus Some dogs are/were).
Familiarization Stimuli – To counterbalance across infants whether the pure stream’s
rules were aX bY or the opposite (aY bX), we created two familiarization lists—a Language 1
(L1) list and a Language 2 (L2) list. An Example of the L1 list is illustrated in Figure 1 (bottom
panel). For this list, we paired each of the 12 possible aX phrases (a1-2X1-6) with each of the12
possible bY phrases (b1-2Y1-6), first to create 144 aXbY sentences and then 144 bYaX sentences.
A random order of the resulting 288 sentences was then divided equally into two sublists for the
pure and mixed speech streams. Each sublist was in turn divided into fourths for 4 unique
periods of each speech stream. Finally, half the sentences in each fourth of the mixed stream
sublist were modified so that unlike the pure stream that adhered to the aX bY rules, the mixed
stream supported opposite rules with equal likelihood. Each sentence was modified by swapping
the X- and Y-words within that sentence, resulting in an aYbX or bXaY sentence (e.g., a1X4b2Y3
became a1Y3b2X4). Within each resulting period of the mixed stream, no more than 3
consecutive sentences supported the pure stream’s rules and no more than 4 the opposite rules.
The L2 familiarization list was a mirror image of the L1 list, created by swapping X- and Y-
words within every sentence of both sublists. In this list, then, the pure stream still supported a
single set of rules and the mixed stream these rules and opposite rules with equal likelihood, but
the rules in the pure stream were now aY bX rather than aX bY.
Each speech stream was presented by playing individual sound files of recorded words in
rapid succession, using the program DMDX (Forster & Forster, 2003). The periods of the two
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
13
speech streams were alternated in one of two orders to counterbalance across infants which
stream came first versus last. The program played adjacent words within and across phrases in
immediate succession, and separated adjacent words across sentences (both within the same
stream and across streams) by 425 ms. The two speech streams were formed from recordings by
different female speakers (F1 and F2). Whether the pure stream was formed from F1’s
recordings and the mixed stream from those of F2 or vice versa was randomly determined for
each infant.
The change in talker voice across speech streams was the only salient perceptual cue to
the transition from one stream to the other. The fact that sentences in the pure stream invariably
supported either aX bY rules or aY bX rules but sentences in the mixed stream variably
supported both did not by itself differentiate these streams in any perceptually salient way. First,
both sentence types were instantiated by the same vocabulary. Second, both had the same
prosody. Specifically, aXbY and bYaX sentences supporting the aX bY rules are matched
respectively with bXaY and aYbX sentences supporting the opposite rules in terms of the
syllable length of words in each sentence position, and all sentences have the same rise-fall-rise-
fall intonation pattern spanning words.
Test Stimuli – To compare listening times to the pure stream’s rules versus the opposite
rules in this and all subsequent experiments, we created two test lists adhering to the aX bY rules
and two adhering to the aY bX rules, using a- and b-words from familiarization but all novel X-
and Y-words (see Figure 1). The aX bY test lists conformed to the pure stream’s rules and the
aY bX test lists to the opposite rules for infants who had received the L1 familiarization list, and
vice versa for infants who had received the L2 familiarization list. To create the aX bY test lists,
each one of the 12 possible aX phrases was randomly paired with a different one of the 12
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
14
possible bY phrases, first to create 12 aXbY sentences and then 12 bYaX sentences. A unique
random order of the resulting 24 sentences was used for each of the two aX bY test lists. These
lists were then used to create mirror image aY bX lists by swapping the X- and Y-words within
each sentence (yielding aYbX and bXaY sentences). Test phrases were recorded by a novel
female speaker (F3) who used the same intonation patterns as the familiarization speakers.
Figure 1. Language familiarization and test materials. Top: Vocabulary for familiarization and
test. a- and b-words are paired with different sets of X- and Y-words during familiarization and
test. X- and Y-words are cued by syllable number (monosyllabic and disyllabic, respectively).
Bottom: Examples of familiarization lists for Experiments 1, 2, and 3. For half the infants in
Experiment 1, familiarization began with the mixed stream (50% aX bY,50% aY bX) and ended
with the pure stream (100% aX bY or aY bX), as illustrated; for the other half of infants, vice
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
15
versa. Streams were spoken by different female talkers (F1 and F2). In Experiments 2 and 3,
both streams were spoken by the same female talker (F1 or F2). These experiments were
identical except that streams were blocked in the former and interleaved in the latter.
2.1.3. Procedure
Familiarization – Familiarization was conducted in a playroom with the infant seated on
a rug surrounded by toys. The familiarization list, which lasted approximately 16 minutes, was
played over two loudspeakers resting on a small table. The experimenter played silently with the
infant and the caregiver was invited to do likewise. Similar incidental familiarization procedures
have been employed previously by Saffran et al. (2008) and Lany and Gómez (2008).
Test - Immediately following familiarization, the infant was seated on its caregiver’s lap
in a sound-attenuated booth. Testing was conducted using the Head-turn Preference Procedure
(Kemler Nelson et al., 1995). The experimenter initiated trials and recorded looking behavior
from outside the booth using an experimental control program running on an Apple Powermac.
Each test trial began with the onset of a blinking light directly in front of the infant. When the
infant fixated this light, the experimenter pressed a button to extinguish it. One of two identical
lights, each directly below a loudspeaker on either side of the infant, then began blinking. Which
light began blinking was randomly determined. When the infant made a head-turn of
approximately 30 degrees toward the blinking light, the experimenter began playing one of the
test lists from the loudspeaker above. The test list played until the infant looked away from the
blinking light for 2 s or until the list terminated (approximately 79 s). The 4 test lists were
presented in 3 random orders for a total of 12 test trials.
2.2. Results
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
16
Infants should generalize the pure stream’s rules to test if they can do so when this stream
is presented in a different voice than the mixed stream and in different 4 minute periods. If,
however, infants form a stronger representation of the first presented language than of the
second, infants who first hear the pure stream should show stronger discrimination of the pure
stream’s rules from the opposite rules compared to infants who first hear the mixed stream,
which equally supports both sets of rules. In Gómez and Lakusta (2004), infants’ test
discrimination manifested as a familiarity effect in that infants listened significantly longer to the
rules that predominated during familiarization compared to the opposite rules. Since the present
study used the same artificial language and the pure stream’s rules predominated (75% of
sentences conformed to them across streams), one might expect generalization of these rules to
likewise manifest as a familiarity effect, though a significant preference for the opposite rules
would be no less indicative of generalization.
A difference score reflecting test discrimination was computed for each infant by
subtracting from the infant’s average looking time to the pure stream’s rules its average looking
time to the opposite rule. A planned one-way ANOVA testing for an effect of stream order did
not approach significance, F(1,14) 2.11, p = .17, ω = .24, indicating that discrimination did not
depend on whether familiarization began or ended with the pure stream. We thus collapsed the
data across this factor. As the left side of Figure 2 shows, a one-sample t-test revealed that
infants’ mean difference score (M = 2.74, SD = 3.82, Range = -1.64 – 11.08) was significantly
higher than chance (i.e., zero), t(15) = 2.81, p = .01, r = .59, indicating a reliable preference for
the pure stream’s rules, consistent with generalizing these rules to test.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
17
Figure 2. Looking time data for Experiments 1-3. Infants’ mean difference score in
each experiment is their average listening time to the pure stream’s rules minus that to the
opposite rules. (Error bars denote SEM; *p < .05; ns = nonsignificant).
2.3. Discussion
Experiment 1 indicates that when the two speech streams are presented in different voices
and in alternating 4 minute periods, 12-month-olds are able to extract the rules unique to the pure
stream. Notably, learning did not depend on whether familiarization began with the pure stream
and ended with the mixed stream or vice versa. However, this null order effect should be
interpreted with caution. Possibly, Experiment 1 lacked sufficient power for detecting this effect
given that only 8 infants received each presentation order.
3. Experiment 2
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
18
Experiment 2 tests the possibility that hearing the two speech streams at different times
helps infants extract the pure stream’s rules, independent of a perceptually salient cue like talker
voice. There are at least two reasons why, however much the two streams are separated in time,
infants might rely on a salient perceptual cue for extracting the pure stream’s rules. One reason
follows from Weiss et al.’s (2009) results suggesting that unless their artificial languages were
presented in different voices, adults combined statistics across them. These results raise the
possibility that infants compute statistical averages over the two speech streams when lacking a
perceptually salient cue for distinguishing them, precluding extraction of the pure stream’s rules
when these noisy combined statistics exceed infants’ tolerance threshold. Regarding Experiment
1, infants might have learned the pure stream’s rules only because the talker voice cue allowed
them to compute, within each speech stream separately, phrase-level co-occurrences between
each a- and b-word on the one hand and the syllable length of the X- and Y-words on the other,
with co-occurrences computed within the pure stream itself then serving as the basis for
generalizing this stream’s rules to test. Had infants instead aggregated these co-occurrence
statistics across speech streams, they might have failed to generalize the pure stream’s rules to
test. This possibility cannot be ruled out because the pure stream’s rules were violated by 25%
of all familiarization sentences across both streams (72/288 sentences), a potentially intolerable
percentage falling between what Gómez and Lakusta (2004) found to be tolerable (17%) and
intolerable (33%) when violations were randomly distributed across a single speaker’s input. It
is also possible that due to decay, more recent sentences received greater weight, though this
predicts stronger discrimination in Experiment 1 when familiarization ends with the pure stream,
contrary to the null order effect.
Second, when familiarization begins with the mixed stream, infants might fail to learn the
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
19
pure stream’s rules unless the transition to the pure stream is signaled by a perceptually salient
change. This would be consistent with Gebhart et al.’s (2009) assertion that their adult
participants had difficulty learning the second of two successively presented artificial languages
due to a failure to detect the language transition. In support, adults learned the second language
when its duration was doubled, allowing evidence for the language change to further accumulate.
Though the authors reported that a change in talker voice did not likewise cue adults to the
transition to the second language, it might nevertheless cue infants to the transition to the pure
stream, since language learners sometimes show stronger sensitivity to voice changes at earlier
ages (see Newman, 2008).
In Experiment 2, the familiarization input was composed such that infants were expected
to extract the pure stream’s rules if temporally separating the two streams enables infants to
extract those rules, but not if infants rely on a salient perceptual cue for either reason discussed
above. For all 12-month-olds, familiarization began and ended with separate 6 minute periods of
the mixed stream, interposed by a single 4 minute period of the pure stream, presented in the
same female voice. As in Experiment 1, then, the speech streams had a slow alternation rate that
might help infants tease them apart, such as by extracting the pure stream’s rules from within this
stream itself. However, infants should fail to extract the pure stream’s rules if they simply
aggregate phrase-level statistics across the two speech streams due to the lack of a salient
perceptual cue (e.g., talker voice) for differentiating them. This is because in this latter case,
learning should be the same as when sentences violating the pure stream’s rules are randomly
distributed across a single input stream as in Gómez and Lakusta (2004), and the percentage of
violations (108/288 sentences = 38%) exceeds what Gómez and Lakusta (2004) found to be
intolerable (33%). Further, the chances of extracting the pure stream’s rules should only
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
20
decrease if more recent sentences receive greater weight, since familiarization ends with 6
minutes of the mixed stream. Infants should likewise fail to learn the pure stream’s rules if they
rely on a salient perceptual cue to detect the transition to the pure stream when familiarization
begins with the mixed steam, since familiarization not only ends with an extended period of the
mixed stream but also begins with an extended period of this stream, with no salient perceptual
cue to the onset of the pure stream.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
Participants were 16 infants (8 females) with a mean age of 12.29 months (Range: 11.66
– 12.95 months) from the local Tucson area. Exclusion criteria were identical to those in
Experiment 1. Six additional infants participated but were excluded from data analyses due to
restlessness during testing (1), crying during familiarization (1), a history of language therapy in
the immediate family (1), or over 10 hours of foreign language exposure per week (3).
3.1.2. Stimuli
As in Experiment 1, we created two familiarization lists to counterbalance the two
versions of the artificial language across infants. Also as in Experiment 1, we first created a L1
familiarization list consisting of 288 randomly ordered sentences supporting the aX bY rules,
including 144 aXbY sentences and 144 bYaX sentences. However, rather than dividing this list
in half for the two different speech streams, we designated the first fourth for the single period of
the pure stream and then divided the remainder in half for the two flanking periods of the mixed
stream. So that sentences in each of these latter periods supported the pure stream’s rules and
opposite rules with equal likelihood, half were randomly selected to be modified using the same
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
21
X–Y swapping method as in Experiment 1. This resulted in no more than 6 successive sentences
supporting the pure stream’s rules and no more than 7 successive sentences the opposite rules.
Also as in Experiment 1, the L2 familiarization list was a mirror image of the L1 list. Each
infant was randomly assigned to one of the two familiarization voices in Experiment 1 (F1 or
F2).
3.1.3. Procedure – The procedure was the same as in Experiment 1
3.2. Results
To reiterate, we hypothesized that infants should extract the pure stream’s rules only if
hearing the two streams at different times enables infants to extract these rules. Consistent with
infants extracting the pure stream’s rules, a one-sample t-test revealed that infants’ mean
difference score (M = 2.55, SD = 3.62, Range = -3.17 – 7.52), as shown in Figure 2 (center), was
significantly greater than chance, t(15) = 2.81, p = .01, r = .58, reflecting reliably longer listening
times to the pure stream’s rules than to the opposite rules.
3.3. Discussion
Infants’ ability to extract the pure stream’s rules in Experiment 2 supports two claims.
One is that infants were not disproportionately influenced by the mixed stream at the beginning
of familiarization, despite receiving no perceptually salient cue to the transition to the pure
stream. If infants had been disproportionately influenced by this initial input, they should have
failed to discriminate the pure stream’s rules from the opposite rules, since this initial input
provided equal support for both. The other claim is that hearing the two speech streams at
different times helped infants extract the pure stream’s rules. As explained earlier, Gómez and
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
22
Lakusta’s (2004) results suggest that if hearing the speech streams at different times in
Experiment 2 does not help infants extract the pure stream’s rules, because infants simply
aggregate phrase-level statistics across streams, then infants should not be able to extract these
rules from the familiarization input.
4. Experiment 3
Experiment 3 sought to confirm that infants in Experiment 2 were able to extract the pure
stream’s rules due to the two streams being separated in time. An alternative possibility is that
infants did not rely on these streams being separated in time because they extracted the pure
stream’s rules from phrase-level statistics aggregated across streams. This latter possibility
cannot be entirely ruled out by Gómez and Lakusta’s (2004) study suggesting that the overall
percentage of violations to the pure stream’s rules across streams would exceed infants’
tolerance threshold, regardless of whether all sentences are given equal weight or more recent
sentences greater weight. The reason is that familiarization in that study consisted of 72
sentences total, whereas familiarization in the current study consisted of 288 sentences total.
One might argue that the infants tested in Experiment 2 tolerated a higher overall percentage of
inconsistency due to receiving 4 times as much exposure to the artificial language.
Infants in Experiment 3 heard the exact same sentences as infants in Experiment 2, but
the pure stream’s sentences were randomly interleaved with those from the mixed stream rather
than being presented successively to form a distinct period of this stream. If infants in
Experiment 2 were able to extract the pure stream’s rules due to hearing the two speech streams
at different times, infants in the present experiment should show weaker learning, because these
streams no longer occur at different times. However, if infants in Experiment 2 learned the pure
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
23
stream’s rules by aggregating phrase-level statistics across the entire familiarization corpus, they
should not show weaker learning, since the overall number of familiarization sentences is
preserved in addition to the percentage of sentences violating the pure stream’s rules. In fact, if
infants in Experiment 2 gave more recent sentences greater weight due to decay, then in the
present experiment they might even show stronger, rather than weaker, learning. As a result of
interleaving the two streams, the distance from the beginning of familiarization averaged by
sentences supporting the pure stream’s rules rises (to ordinal position 139.8 from 89.73) more so
than the distance averaged by sentences supporting the opposite rules (to 153.5 from 147.1).
Consequently, the sum of the ordinal positions of sentences supporting the pure stream’s rules
differs more from that of sentences supporting the opposite rules in the present experiment
(25,022 vs. 16,151) than in Experiment 2 (16,573 vs. 15,745). Thus, if summing the ordinal
positions of sentences supporting each set of rules is indicative of the relative amount of support
each set receives in a memory store subject to decay, the redistribution of sentences in the
present experiment would appear to promote unbalanced support for them, and thus a stronger
basis for discriminating them.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
Participants were 16 infants (9 females) with a mean age of 12.18 months (Range: 11.6 –
12.6 months). Recruiting methods and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in
Experiments 1 and 2. Three additional infants participated but were not included in data
analyses due to having over 10 hours of foreign language exposure per week (2) or due to
technical difficulties (1).
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
24
4.1.2. Stimuli
The L1 familiarization list was identical to that in Experiment 2 except that sentences
from the two speech streams were randomly interleaved. This interleaving resulted in no more
that 11 successive sentences supporting the pure stream’s rules and no more than 5 successive
sentences supporting the opposite rules. The L2 familiarization list mirrored the L1
familiarization list as in previous experiments.
4.1.3. Procedure – The procedure was the same as in Experiments 1 and 2.
4.2. Results
Test discrimination should be weaker than in Experiment 2 if infants in this previous
experiment relied on the speech streams’ temporal separation to extract the pure stream’s rules.
The mean difference scores of Experiments 2 and 3 are shown in the center and right hand side
of Figure 2, respectively. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the distribution of infants’
difference scores in Experiment 3 deviated from a normal distribution, D(16) = 0.343, p < .001
(those in Experiments 1 and 2 did not; p > .05), so non-parametric tests were used for subsequent
comparisons. Consistent with infants’ extraction of the pure stream’s rules in Experiment 2
being due to the two streams’ temporal separation, a Mann-Whitney2 test revealed a reliable
tendency for the difference scores in Experiment 3 (M = 2.55, SD = 3.62, Range = -3.17 – 7.52)
to be lower than those in Experiment 2 (M = .68, SD = 7.56, Range = -7.06 – 26.18), U = 73.5, p
= .04, r = -.36. A follow up one-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test showed that the Experiment
3 scores were not significantly different from chance, Ws = 64, p = .84, r = -.05, suggesting
2A Levene’s test revealed that the variances between the two experiments were not significantly
different (p > .05). Therefore, the Mann-Whitney test was appropriate for testing for a shift in
central tendency between these two experiments.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
25
failure to learn the pure stream’s rules in this experiment.
4.3. Discussion
These results reveal that interleaving the two speech streams rather than presenting them
at different times eliminated infants’ ability to extract the pure stream’s rules. This finding
supports the notion that infants in Experiment 2 were able to extract the pure stream’s rules due
to these streams being presented at different times. It is not the case that separating the two
streams in time was unhelpful because infants simply aggregated across these streams phrase-
level statistics between the a- and b-words and the syllable length of the following X- and Y-
words.
5. General Discussion
The present study suggests that when infants hear two different dialects, their ability to
learn rules present in only one dialect does not necessarily require detecting those rules from
statistical averages computed across dialects. Rather, infants may be able to compute statistics
more supportive of dialect-specific rules. Moreover, this computational approach may not
depend on a salient perceptual distinction between the two dialects (such as talker voice), so long
as these conflicting sources of input are sufficiently separated in time. These insights derive
from Experiments 2 and 3, in which our two artificial language streams representing different
dialects were not differentiated in any perceptually salient way. The experiments together
suggest that alternating the two speech streams in minutes-long intervals (Experiment 2), rather
than presenting these streams’ sentences in random order (Experiment 3), enabled infants to
learn the pure stream’s aX bY (or aY bX) rules without inordinate interference from the mixed
stream in which any a- or b-word could precede any X- or Y-word. Separating the streams in
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
26
time should not have helped infants learn the pure stream’s rules if infants invariably average
statistics across streams. Importantly, the rules that infants learned were abstract, as indicated by
infants’ ability to generalize them to novel sentences at test based on underlying
morphophonological relations between the a- and b-words and the syllable length of the
following (monosyllabic) X- and (disyllabic) Y-words.
5.1. How did infants avoid aggregating across the familiarization corpus?
Our finding that infants in Experiment 2 did not simply compute statistical averages
across the two speech streams even though these streams were presented in the same voice does
not necessarily contradict Weiss et al.’s (2009) claim that unless their languages were presented
in different voices, adults combined statistics across them. Consistent with the view that
memory limitations can facilitate language learning (Newport, 1990), one plausible explanation
for these contrasting findings is that 12-month-olds in Experiment 2 lacked the memory capacity
to combine across speech streams, whereas adults in Weiss et al. (2009) were evidently capable
of combining across languages. This potential difference between 12-month-olds and adults
could have been developmental, given Vlach and Johnson’s (2013) finding that 16-month-olds
were unable to aggregate word-object pairings across a roughly 3-minute period like 20-month-
olds. Or it could have arisen from methodological differences, given that our speech streams
alternated in longer intervals than Weiss et al.’s (2009) languages (4-6 minutes vs. 2) and thus
might have required greater memory capacity to combine. Further, our streams consisted of
sentences conforming to productive rules, whereas Weiss et al.’s (2009) languages consisted of
word sequences conforming to transitional probabilities between sublexical segments. Research
suggests that processing either type of structure is subject to memory constraints (Frank &
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
27
Gibson, 2011; Frank, Goldwater, Griffiths, & Tenenbaum, 2010) but does not exclude the
possibility that processing our streams was subject to greater constraints.
5.2. Why did the initial mixed stream trial not block subsequent learning?
Our results suggest that infants’ exposure to two dialects at different times might help
them extract dialect-specific rules even when the dialect containing those rules is both preceded
and followed by a longer period of the dialect lacking them. This is because infants in
Experiment 2 extracted the pure stream’s rules when a single 4 minute period of the pure stream
was both preceded and followed by 6 minutes of the mixed stream. Of particular note is infants’
ability to learn the pure stream’s rules from this stream notwithstanding the preceding 6-minute
period of the mixed stream. Since sentences in the mixed stream randomly conformed to the
pure stream’s rules and opposite rules (aX bY and aY bX), one might have expected infants to
conclude precipitously from this preceding input that any a- or b-word can precede both
monosyllabic and disyllabic words, precluding learning of the more systematic
morphophonological relations underlying the pure stream’s rules. Such a learning outcome
would have been compatible with studies in which adults had difficulty learning other than from
their initial input.
That infants were able to learn the pure stream’s rules despite familiarization beginning
with 6 minutes of the mixed stream makes more sense when considering the possibility that
during this initial period, infants’ sensitivity to the X- and Y-words’ syllable length distinction
was not sufficient for strongly representing these words’ random morphophonological relations
with the preceding a- and b-words. Infants might have lacked sensitivity to the X- and Y-words’
syllable length distinction precisely because of these words’ random relations with the preceding
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
28
a- and b-words, which resulted in the X- and Y-words sharing the same speech context,
inasmuch as they were preceded by the same words. Increasing evidence suggests that gaining
sensitivity to contrasting speech categories may depend critically upon the categories having
distinct speech contexts (see Feldman, Griffiths, Goldwater, & Morgan, 2013). For example,
Thiessen (2007) found that 15-month-olds noticed when a novel object previously labeled “daw”
was subsequently labeled “taw” only if they had previously heard “daw” and “taw” in distinct
lexical contexts (“dawbow” and “tawgoo”), not in the same contexts (“dawgoo” and “tawgoo”),
or in isolation. Importantly, Gómez (2006) found that 12-month-olds are not readily sensitive to
the X- and Y-words’ syllable length distinction. Specifically, infants were unable to generalize
rules such as aX bY to test if they heard only half the X- and Y-words (3 each) rather than the
full set (6 each), presumably because higher variation in X- and Y-words highlights each
category’s invariant syllable length (Gómez, 2006). We are suggesting here that another
requirement for gaining sensitivity to the X- and Y-words’ syllable length distinction may be that
these words differentially covary with the a- and b-words. None of this is to argue that strong
representation of the mixed stream’s random relations would have necessarily prevented infants
from later learning the more systematic relations underlying the pure stream’s rules, only that it
may have been one unmet requirement.
The above provides a theoretically motivated explanation for contrasting results from our
study and that of Gebhart et al. (2009). Recall that these authors’ results suggested that adults’
exposure to the first of two languages presented in immediate succession blocked learning of the
second unless the duration of the second was longer (15 vs. 5 min). This contrasts with our
finding that infants’ exposure to the initial period of the mixed stream did not block subsequent
learning from the pure stream that followed, despite this latter period’s shorter duration (4 vs. 6
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
29
min). In Gebhart et al. (2009), however, adults’ test performance indicated strong sensitivity to
first language regularities that conflicted with second language regularities. We have suggested
that because the initial period of the mixed stream randomly supported the pure stream’s rules
and opposite rules, infants did not strongly represent the morphophonological relations in this
initial input, ensuring their ability to subsequently learn the more systematic relations underlying
the pure stream’s rules. We would perhaps replicate Gebhart et al. (2009) order effect if the
initial period of the mixed stream were modified such that rather than sentences supporting the
pure stream’s rules just as often as opposite rules (aX bY and aY bX), sentences consistently
supported the opposite rules (e.g., aY bX), leading infants to form a strong representation of the
relations underlying these opposite rules. This might then block subsequent learning of the
relations underlying the pure stream’s rules. Indeed, infants might be particularly susceptible to
such an order effect given their relatively weak inhibitory control (e.g., Davidson, Amso,
Anderson, & Diamond, 2006; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000), as Bartolotti, Marian, Schroeder, and
Shook (2011) found that adults’ ability to learn the second of two artificial languages with
conflicting regularities correlated positively with inhibitory control.
5.3. A preliminary account of Experiment 2
The experiments reported here do not indicate precisely how 12-month-olds in
Experiment 2 extracted the pure stream’s rules, but based on the points discussed above, we will
suggest a preliminary account comprising four key assumptions. First, infants were unable to
combine statistics broadly across speech streams. This follows from Vlach and Johnson’s (2013)
finding that 16-month-olds were unable to aggregate word-object pairing over a roughly 3
minute period, together with the fact that our speech streams alternated in relatively long
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
30
intervals of 4-6 minutes. Our second assumption, just discussed, is that during the initial period
of the mixed stream infants were unable to strongly represent the random relations between the
a- and b-words and the syllable length of the following X- and Y-words. Our third assumption,
also just discussed, is that weak representation of the random relations in this initial input
ensured that exposure to this input did not block subsequent learning during the pure stream of
the more systematic morphophonological relations underlying the pure stream’s rules. To
clarify, this assumption is not that the initial period of the mixed stream had no influence
whatsoever on subsequent learning, only that whatever influence it might have had did not
prevent subsequent extraction of the morphophonological relations underlying the pure stream’s
rules. Our final assumption is that infants retained this rule learning to test without inordinate
interference from the final period of the mixed stream, consistent with adults in Gebhart et al.
(2009) retaining the first of two languages through the second. To clarify this assumption as
well, it is not that the final period of the mixed stream in no way modified infants’ representation
of the pure stream’s rules, only that any possible modification did not prevent generalization of
the pure stream’s rules to test.
An alternative account is that infants in Experiment 2 formed a representation of the
initial period of the mixed stream strong enough to resist combining with the period of the pure
stream that followed, and a representation of this latter period strong enough to resist combining
with the final period of the mixed stream. Separating the two speech streams thus, infants had
little difficulty extracting the pure stream’s rules. Insofar as this account explains how infants
separated speech streams, it meshes well with our suggestion in the Introduction that adults in
Gebhart et al. (2009) might not have combined languages like adults in Weiss et al. (2009)
because the first language’s initial period was longer than in Weiss et al. (2009), permitting
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
31
representation of it strong enough to resist combining with the second language. As already
noted, however, we would predict on the basis of Gebhart et al.’s (2009) results that strong
representation of the initial period of the mixed stream would block subsequent extraction of the
pure stream’s rules. Modifying this alternative account slightly, one might suggest that infants
combined the initial period of the mixed stream with the period of the pure stream that followed,
and from this combined input formed a representation of the pure stream’s rules resistant to
combining with the final period of the mixed stream. Putting aside our suspicion that infants
lacked the memory capacity to combine these first two periods, the pure stream’s rules were
violated by 30% of sentences across these periods. Our more recent data (Gonzales, Gerken, &
Gómez, 2014) indicate that this percentage exceeds infants’ tolerance threshold, even when the
familiarization phase is longer than the combined duration of these two periods.
5.4. Broader considerations
The research discussed throughout this paper paints a complex picture of the
circumstances under which language learners might succeed at learning structure unique to one
of two input sources, such as two different languages or dialects. We have discussed previous
work suggesting that learning may depend on whether the input source in question is
differentiated from the other input source by a salient perceptual cue (Weiss et al., 2009),
whether it is heard before or after the other input source (Gebhart et al., 2009), and whether its
duration is longer when heard after the other one (Gebhart et al., 2009). Adding to this
complexity, we have argued on the basis of our results that learning may depend on whether the
two input sources are heard in distinct time periods, and perhaps also on whether the other input
source’s competing structure is strongly represented. However, all of these dimensions could be
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
32
thought of as variations along a more general continuum of support for competing structures3.
Such a perspective explains why at least some of these dimensions appear to interact, like the
order of the two sources of input and the duration of the second source (Gebhart et al., 2009).
Further, it provides a useful framework for predicting additional interactions. For example, one
could predict that although infants were unable to extract the pure stream’s rules when the two
streams’ sentences were presented in the same voice and randomly interleaved (Experiment 3),
infants might extract the rules under the exact same circumstances except with each stream’s
sentences presented in a different voice. We are currently investigating such questions to better
understand how infants negotiate linguistic diversity in their rich multidimensional language
environments (Gonzales, Gerken, & Gómez, 2014).
5.5. Conclusion
To conclude, the present study suggests that infants might come better prepared to
negotiate bi-dialectal input than previously thought. While it is widely suspected that infants
tease apart linguistically diverse input using salient perceptual cues such as rhythm or talker
voice, our artificial language results suggest that infants are sensitive to the dynamics of their
input such that they can tease apart two dialects independent of such cues. Specifically, it
appears that for 12-month-olds at least, simply hearing two dialects at different times may be
helpful for learning dialect-specific rules.
References
Bartolotti, J., Marian, V., Schroeder, S. R., & Shook, A. (2011). Bilingualism and inhibitory
control influence statistical learning of novel word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 2,
324.
3 We thank József Fiser and Toben Mintz for this suggestion
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
33
Byers-Heinlein, K. (2014). Languages as categories: Reframing the “One Language or Two”
question in early bilingual development. Language Learning, 64, 184–201.
Byers-Heinlein, K., Burns, T. F., & Werker, J. F. (2010). The roots of bilingualism in newborns.
Psychological Science, 21, 343–348.
Curtin, S. A., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2011). Bilingual beginnings as a lens for
theory development: PRIMIR in focus. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 492–504.
Davidson, M., Amso, D., Anderson, L., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive
control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of
memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037–2078.
Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of
starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99.
Feldman, N., Griffiths, T., Goldwater S., & Morgan, J. (2013). A role for the developing lexicon
in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review, 120, 751–778.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond
accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
Frank, M. C., & Gibson, E. (2011). Overcoming memory limitations in rule learning.
Language Learning and Development, 7, 130–148.
Frank, M. C., Goldwater, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Modeling
human performance in statistical word segmentation. Cognition, 7, 130–148.
Gebhart, A. L., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Changing structures in midstream:
Learning along the statistical garden path. Cognitive Science, 33, 1087–1116.
Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development
of self-regulation in children 24–36 months of age. Developmental
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
34
Science, 3, 397–404.
Gómez, R. L. (2006). Dynamically guided learning. In Y. Munakata & M. Johns (Eds.),
Attention & Performance XXI: Processes of change in brain and cognitive development
(pp. 87–110). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gómez, R. L., & Lakusta, L. (2004). A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-
month-old infants. Developmental Science, 7, 567–580.
Gonzales, K., Gerken, L. A., & Gómez, R. L. (2014). From acoustic detail to abstract
grammar? How indexical variation constrains infants’ grammar generalizations. Paper
presented at the XIX Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies, Berlin,
Germany.
Hazen, K. (2014). A new role for an ancient variable in Appalachia: Paradigm leveling and
standardization in West Virginia. Language Variation and Change, 26, 77–102.
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles
of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and
Development, 1, 151–195.
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When
learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 30–66.
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., & Gerken, L. A.
(1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant
Behavior and Development, 18, 111–116.
Lany, J., & Gómez, R. L. (2008). Twelve-month-old infants benefit from prior experience in
statistical learning. Psychological Science, 19, 1247–1252.
Mitchel, A. D, & Weiss, D. J. (2010). What’s in a face? Visual contributions to speech
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
35
segmentation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 456–482.
Molnar, M., Gervain, J., & Carreiras, M. (2013). Within-rhythm class native language
discrimination abilities of Basque-Spanish monolingual and bilingual infants at 3.5
months of age. Infancy, 19, 326–337.
Nazzi, T., Bertoncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1998). Language discrimination by newborns: towards
an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 24, 756–766.
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14,
11–28.
Newman, R. S. (2008). The level of detail in infants’ word learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17, 229–232.
Ramus, F., & Mehler, J. (1999). Language identification with suprasegmental cues: A study
based on speech resynthesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 512–
521.
Ross, D. S., & Newport, E. L. (1996). The development of language from non-native linguistic
input. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughs, & A. Zukowski (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
(pp. 623–645). Boston: Cascadilla.
Saffran, J.R., Hauser, M., Seibel, R.L., Kapfhamer, J., Tsao, F., & Cushman, F. (2008).
Grammatical pattern learning by infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Cognition,
107(2), 479–500.
Schmale, R., & Seidl, A. (2009). Accommodating variability in voice and foreign accent:
Flexibility of early word representations. Developmental Science, 12, 583–601.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
36
Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (2001). Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign
Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science, 12, 323–328.
Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition
of American Sign Language from impoverished input. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 370–
407.
Sundara, M., & Scutellaro, A. (2011). Rhythmic distance between languages affects the
development of speech perception in bilingual infants. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 505–
513.
Thiessen, E. D. (2007). The effect of distributional information on children’s use of phonemic
contrasts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 16–34.
Vlach, H. A., &, Johnson, S. P. (2013). Memory constraints on infants’ cross-situational
statistical learning. Cognition, 127, 375–382.
Weiss, D. J., Gerfen, C., & Mitchel, A. D. (2009). Speech segmentation in a simulated bilingual
environment: A challenge for statistical learning? Language Learning and Development,
5, 30–49.
HEARING DIALECTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES
37
Acknowledgements
We thank Andrew Lotto, József Fiser, and two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments
on previous versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by NIH HD42170 to LAG
and RLG and by NSF CAREER Award BCS-0238584 to RLG.
