Cited by 514Language Development and DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchReading and Literacy Development

Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation

Open access
Brent, Michael R., Cartwright, Timothy A.·1996·Cognition

Abstract

In order to acquire a lexicon, young children must segment speech into words, even though most words are unfamiliar to them. This is a non-trivial task because speech lacks any acoustic analog of the blank spaces between printed words. Two sources of information that might be useful for this task are distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints. Informally, distributional regularity refers to the intuition that sound sequences that occur frequently and in a variety of contexts are better candidates for the lexicon than those that occur rarely or in few contexts. We express that intuition formally by a class of functions called DR functions. We then put forth three hypotheses: First, that children segment using DR functions. Second, that they exploit phonotactic constraints on the possible pronunciations of words in their language. Specifically, they exploit both the requirement that every word must have a vowel and the constraints that languages impose on word-initial and word-final consonant clusters. Third, that children learn which word-boundary clusters are permitted in their language by assuming that all permissible word-boundary clusters will eventually occur at utterance boundaries. Using computational simulation, we investigate the effectiveness of these strategies for segmenting broad phonetic transcripts of child-directed English. The results show that DR functions and phonotactic constraints can be used to significantly improve segmentation. Further, the contributions of DR functions and phonotactic constraints are largely independent, so using both yields better segmentation than using either one alone. Finally, learning the permissible word-boundary clusters from utterance boundaries does not degrade segmentation performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00719-6

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Across a language sample, sounds that co-occur within words tend to be more highly correlated with one another than sound pairs spanning word boundaries.

    “Across a language sample, sounds that co-occur within words tend to be more highly correlated with one another than sound pairs spanning word boundaries.”

    From Incidental Language Learning: Listening (and Learning) Out of the Corner of Your Ear (1997) · cites this paper as Brent & Cartwright, 1996

    Section 4.1 (page unavailable) describes placing word boundaries at troughs in transitional probabilities between syllables, and Section 5 says frequent adjacent subsequences are more likely to be treated as one word. These passages support the general idea that co-occurrence helps distinguish within-word sequences from boundary-spanning ones, but they do not report a comparison showing that sound pairs within words are, across a language sample, more highly correlated than pairs spanning boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Infants may be able to exploit statistical cues to word boundaries.

    “infants may be able to exploit statistical cues to word boundaries”

    From Incidental Language Learning: Listening (and Learning) Out of the Corner of Your Ear (1997) · cites this paper as Brent & Cartwright, 1996

  • Recent computational models of language acquisition suggest that at least some pertinent language-learning mechanisms may induce structure from the input using statistical methods similar to those suggested by incidental-learning research.

    “recent computational models of language acquisition suggest that at least some pertinent language-learning mechanisms may induce structure from the input using statistical methods similar to those suggested by incidental-learning research”

    From Incidental Language Learning: Listening (and Learning) Out of the Corner of Your Ear (1997) · cites this paper as Brent & Cartwright, 1996

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

15 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Brent, M.R., Gafos, A., & Cartwright, T.A. (1994). Phonotactics, and the lexicon: Beyond bootstrap- ping. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Cutler, A. (1996). Prosody and the word boundary problem. In J.L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. '87-100), Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.
  3. DiSciullo, A., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. No. 14 in Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. Ellison, T.M. (1991). Discovering planar segregations. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Machine Learning of Natural Language and Ontology. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
  5. Ellison, T,M. (forthcoming). The machine learning of phonological structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Fisher, C., & Tokura, H. (1996). Prosody in speech to infants: Direct and indirect acoustic cues to syntactic structure. In J.L. Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping .from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 343-364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Jusczyk, P.W., & Kemler Nelson, D.G. (1996). Syntactic units, prosody, and psychological reality during infancy. In J.L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 389-408). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  8. Newsome, M.R., & Jusczyk, P.W. (1995). Do infants use stress as a cue in segmenting fluent speech? In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 415-426). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  9. Olivier, D.C. (1968). Stochastic grammars and language acquisition mechanisms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
  10. Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of information. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brent, M. R., & Cartwright, T. A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Brent, Michael R.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-10
Volume
61
Issue
1-2
Pages
93-125
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029948425
Cited by
514
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
31.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
speech segmentation, phonotactic constraints, word learning, child language acquisition, word boundaries, consonant clusters, utterance boundaries, computer simulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Attention, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Male, Phonetics, Mental Recall, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary

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