Speech segmentation and word discovery: a computational perspective
Open accessAbstract
The segmentation and word discovery problem arises because speech does not contain any reliable acoustic analog of the blank spaces between words of printed English. As a result, children must segment the utterances they hear in order to discover the sound patterns of individual words in their language. A number of computational models have been proposed to explain how children segment speech and discover words, including ten new models in the last five years. This paper reviews all proposed models and organizes them according to their fundamental segmentation strategies, their processing characteristics, and the ways in which they use memory. All proposed models are found to use one of three fundamental strategies: the utterance-boundary strategy, the predictability strategy, or the word-recognition strategy. Selected predictions of the models are explained, their performance in computer simulations is summarized, and behavioral evidence bearing on them is discussed. Finally, ideas about how these diverse models might be synthesized into one comprehensive model are offered.
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?
Infants automatically analyze simple distributional statistics in the language they hear, to discover the word boundaries.
“Infants automaticallyanaly ze simple distributional statistics in the language theyhear, to discover the word boundaries (Brent, 1999; Elman, 1990).”
From FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition (2002) · cites this paper as Brent, 1999
This work set firm foundations for more recent recurrent models of language sequence analysis.
“This work set firm foundations for more recent recurrent models of language sequence analysis (Brent, 1999; Christiansen et al., 1998; Elman, 1990).”
From FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition (2002) · cites this paper as Brent, 1999
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 163
- Authors
- Brent, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brent, Michael R.
- ORCID
- Brent, Michael R.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 294-301
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162505970
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- 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, word discovery, computational model of language acquisition, word recognition, child language acquisition
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