The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning

Timothy J. Poepsel, Daniel J. Weiss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statistical learning is a fundamental component of language acquisition, yet to date, relatively few studies have examined whether these abilities differ in bilinguals. In the present study, we examine this issue by comparing English monolinguals with Chinese-English and English-Spanish bilinguals in a cross-situational statistical learning (CSSL) task. In Experiment 1, we assessed the ability of both monolinguals and bilinguals on a basic CSSL task that contained only one-to-one mappings. In Experiment 2, learners were asked to form both one-to-one and two-to-one mappings, and were tested at three points during familiarization. Overall, monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in their learning of one-to-one mappings. However, bilinguals more quickly acquired two-to-one mappings, while also exhibiting greater proficiency than monolinguals. We conclude that the fundamental SL mechanism may not be affected by language experience, in accord with previous studies. However, when the input contains greater variability, bilinguals may be more prone to detecting the presence of multiple structures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)9-19
Number of pages11
JournalCognition
Volume152
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Fingerprint

Multilingualism
multilingualism
Learning
Aptitude
learning
Language
experiment
ability
language acquisition
Bilingualism
Word Learning
language
Statistical Learning
experience

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

@article{a480af2193694dddaa28976a83cef1fb,
title = "The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning",
abstract = "Statistical learning is a fundamental component of language acquisition, yet to date, relatively few studies have examined whether these abilities differ in bilinguals. In the present study, we examine this issue by comparing English monolinguals with Chinese-English and English-Spanish bilinguals in a cross-situational statistical learning (CSSL) task. In Experiment 1, we assessed the ability of both monolinguals and bilinguals on a basic CSSL task that contained only one-to-one mappings. In Experiment 2, learners were asked to form both one-to-one and two-to-one mappings, and were tested at three points during familiarization. Overall, monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in their learning of one-to-one mappings. However, bilinguals more quickly acquired two-to-one mappings, while also exhibiting greater proficiency than monolinguals. We conclude that the fundamental SL mechanism may not be affected by language experience, in accord with previous studies. However, when the input contains greater variability, bilinguals may be more prone to detecting the presence of multiple structures.",
author = "Poepsel, {Timothy J.} and Weiss, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "152",
pages = "9--19",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning. / Poepsel, Timothy J.; Weiss, Daniel J.

In: Cognition, Vol. 152, 01.07.2016, p. 9-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning

AU - Poepsel, Timothy J.

AU - Weiss, Daniel J.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Statistical learning is a fundamental component of language acquisition, yet to date, relatively few studies have examined whether these abilities differ in bilinguals. In the present study, we examine this issue by comparing English monolinguals with Chinese-English and English-Spanish bilinguals in a cross-situational statistical learning (CSSL) task. In Experiment 1, we assessed the ability of both monolinguals and bilinguals on a basic CSSL task that contained only one-to-one mappings. In Experiment 2, learners were asked to form both one-to-one and two-to-one mappings, and were tested at three points during familiarization. Overall, monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in their learning of one-to-one mappings. However, bilinguals more quickly acquired two-to-one mappings, while also exhibiting greater proficiency than monolinguals. We conclude that the fundamental SL mechanism may not be affected by language experience, in accord with previous studies. However, when the input contains greater variability, bilinguals may be more prone to detecting the presence of multiple structures.

AB - Statistical learning is a fundamental component of language acquisition, yet to date, relatively few studies have examined whether these abilities differ in bilinguals. In the present study, we examine this issue by comparing English monolinguals with Chinese-English and English-Spanish bilinguals in a cross-situational statistical learning (CSSL) task. In Experiment 1, we assessed the ability of both monolinguals and bilinguals on a basic CSSL task that contained only one-to-one mappings. In Experiment 2, learners were asked to form both one-to-one and two-to-one mappings, and were tested at three points during familiarization. Overall, monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in their learning of one-to-one mappings. However, bilinguals more quickly acquired two-to-one mappings, while also exhibiting greater proficiency than monolinguals. We conclude that the fundamental SL mechanism may not be affected by language experience, in accord with previous studies. However, when the input contains greater variability, bilinguals may be more prone to detecting the presence of multiple structures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961717143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961717143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.001

M3 - Article

VL - 152

SP - 9

EP - 19

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

ER -