Statistical clustering and the contents of the infant vocabulary
Open accessAbstract
Infants parse speech into word-sized units according to biases that develop in the first year. One bias, present before the age of 7 months, is to cluster syllables that tend to co-occur. The present computational research demonstrates that this statistical clustering bias could lead to the extraction of speech sequences that are actual words, rather than missegmentations. In English and Dutch, these word-forms exhibit the strong-weak (trochaic) pattern that guides lexical segmentation after 8 months, suggesting that the trochaic parsing bias is learned as a generalization from statistically extracted bisyllables, and not via attention to short utterances or to high-frequency bisyllables. Extracted word-forms come from various syntactic classes, and exhibit distributional characteristics enabling rudimentary sorting of words into syntactic categories. The results highlight the importance of infants' first year in language learning: though they may know the meanings of very few words, infants are well on their way to building a vocabulary.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The difference in categorization performance as a function of label statistical structure indicates that the output of statistical learning shares properties of real words.
“The difference in categorization performance as a function of label statistical structure indicates that the output of statistical learning shares properties of real words, consistent with theories that posit that statistical learning yields word-like representations (e.g., Saffran, 2001; Swingley, 2005).”
From Statistically coherent labels facilitate categorization in 8-month-olds (2014) · cites this paper as Swingley, 2005
Cites
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(84)80022-3 · Cited by 2,801 · see citing works
Probability of shock in the presence and absence of cs in fear conditioning.
Rescorla, R. A. (1968) · Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025984 · Cited by 1,067 · cited 6× · see citing works
“…group statistically cohesive syllable sequences because this leads to words; infants group such sequences because statistical clustering is a basic attribute of interpretation, across domains and in both humans and other animals (e.g. Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984; Newport & Aslin, 2004; Rescorla, 1968).”
MethodInfluentialDistributional Information: A Powerful Cue for Acquiring Syntactic Categories
Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2204_2 · Cited by 535 · cited 3× · see citing works
“As Table 2 shows, some form-class similarities could be discerned in the categories extracted in the analysis of contexts, though these categories were not as ‘‘pure’’ as those found by Mintz et al. (2002) or Redington et al. (1998).”
Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation
Brent, M. R., & Cartwright, T. A. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00719-6 · Cited by 514 · cited 11× · see citing works
“We will begin with the DR model of Brent and Cartwright (1996) .”
InfluentialHarris, Z. S. (1955) · Language · doi:10.2307/411036 · Cited by 256 · cited 4× · see citing works
“The idea that words may be identified via distributional analysis is not new (e.g. Brent & Cartwright, 1996; Harris, 1955; Hayes & Clark, 1970; Pinker, 1984) but infants discovery of words has received less attention than infants discovery of phonetic categories.”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Statistically coherent labels facilitate categorization in 8-month-olds
Erickson, L. C., Thiessen, E. D., & Graf Estes, K. (2014) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.002 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Bryson, J. J. (2008) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-007-0044-4 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Swingley, D.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Swingley, Daniel
- ORCID
- Swingley, Daniel
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 86-132
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136549906
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 11.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- statistical learning, word learning, vocabulary acquisition, word segmentation, first year of life
- MeSH terms
- Child Language, Humans, Infant, Phonetics, Semantics, Speech Perception, Vocabulary, Cluster Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review