Advertisement

Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science

, Volume 2, Issue 1–2, pp 21–33 | Cite as

Literate and preliterate children show different learning patterns in an artificial language learning task

  • Naomi HavronEmail author
  • Limor Raviv
  • Inbal Arnon
Research Paper

Abstract

Literacy affects many aspects of cognitive and linguistic processing. Among them, it increases the salience of words as units of linguistic processing. Here, we explored the impact of literacy acquisition on children’s learning of an artifical language. Recent accounts of L1–L2 differences relate adults’ greater difficulty with language learning to their smaller reliance on multiword units. In particular, multiword units are claimed to be beneficial for learning opaque grammatical relations like grammatical gender. Since literacy impacts the reliance on words as units of processing, we ask if and how acquiring literacy may change children’s language-learning results. We looked at children’s success in learning novel noun labels relative to their success in learning article-noun gender agreement, before and after learning to read. We found that preliterate first graders were better at learning agreement (larger units) than at learning nouns (smaller units), and that the difference between the two trial types significantly decreased after these children acquired literacy. In contrast, literate third graders were as good in both trial types. These findings suggest that literacy affects not only language processing, but also leads to important differences in language learning. They support the idea that some of children’s advantage in language learning comes from their previous knowledge and experience with language—and specifically, their lack of experience with written texts.

Keywords

Language learning Literacy Artificial language Communication Linguistic units 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by ISF Grant 52712 (to IA). The authors thank the schools, teachers, parents, and children for their cooperation. We thank the research assistants who helped administer the tasks: Tamar Johnson, Ruth Goldberg, and Yaron Shapira.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2008). Multilingual imperatives: the elaboration of a category in northwest Amazonia. International Journal of American Linguistics, 74(2), 189–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon, I. (2010). Starting big—The role of multi-word phrases in language learning and use. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2014). Chunk-based language acquisition. In P. J. Brooks & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (pp. 88–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1–L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 621–636.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 122(3), 292–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassetti, B. (2005). In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Second language writing systems (pp. 335–356).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair, C., & Peters Razza, R. (2007). Relating Effortful Control. Executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in Kindergarten, 78(2), 647–663.Google Scholar
  8. Brunswick, N., Martin, G. N., & Rippon, G. (2012). Early cognitive profiles of emergent readers: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(2), 268–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro-Caldas, A., Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., Stone-Elander, S., & Ingvar, M. (1998). The illiterate brain. Learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional organization of the adult brain. Brain, 121(6), 1053–1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung, H., & Chen, H.-C. (2004). Early orthographic experience modifies both phonological awareness and on-line speech processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(November), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 254–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Filho, G. N., Jobert, A., et al. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science, 330(6009), 1359–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dellatolas, G., Braga, L. W., Souza, L. D. O. N., Filho, G. N., Queiroz, E., & Deloche, G. (2003). Cognitive consequences of early phase of literacy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 771–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewaele, J.-M., & Véronique, D. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(3), 275–297.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890100044X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehri, L. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. In T. G. Waller & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fernandes, T., Kolinsky, R., & Ventura, P. (2009). The metamorphosis of the statistical segmentation output: Lexicalization during artificial language learning. Cognition, 112(3), 349–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gombert, J. E. (1994). How do illiterate adults react to metalinguistic training? Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 250–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59(2), 267–333.  https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1819.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(650), 31–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Havron, N., & Arnon, I. (2017a). Minding the gaps: literacy enhances lexical segmentation in children learning to read. Journal of Child Language, 44(6), 1516–1538.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Havron, N., & Arnon, I. (2017b). Reading between the words: The effect of literacy on second language lexical segmentation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(1), 127–153.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holden, M. H., & MacGinitie, W. H. (1972). Children’s conceptions of word boundaries in speech and print. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(6), 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huba, M. E., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (1995). The language skills and concepts of early and nonearly readers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156(3), 313–331.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1995.9914826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huettig, F., & Mishra, R. K. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind—A critical examination of theories and evidence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(10), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaufman, A. S., Balgopal, R., Kaufrnan, J. C., & McLean, J. E. (1994). WISC-III Short Forms: Psychometric Properties vs. Clinical Relevance vs. Practical Utility. Paper for presentation at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  29. Kavé, G. (2006). The development of naming and word fluency: Evidence from Hebrew-speaking children between ages 8 and 17. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(3), 493–508.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kolinsky, R., Cary, L., & Morais, J. (1987). Awareness of words as phonological entities: The role of literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(3), 223–232.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kosmidis, M. H., Zafiri, M., & Politimou, N. (2011). Literacy versus formal schooling: Influence. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(7), 575–582.  https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acr063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurvers, J., Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2007). Literacy and word boundaries. In Low-Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition: Research, Policy and Practice: Proceedings of the Second Annual Forum (pp. 45–64).Google Scholar
  33. Kurvers, J., & Uri, H. (2006). Metalexical awareness: Development, methodology or written language? A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 353–367.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9019-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurvers, J., Vallen, T., & Van Hout, R. (2006). Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium, (pp. 69–88).Google Scholar
  35. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ english. Language Learning, 61(June), 647–672.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin, I., Ravid, D., Rapaport, S., & Nunes, T. (1999). Developing morphological awareness and learning to write: A two-way street. Neuropsychology and Cognition, 17, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 447–464.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Lieven, E. V. M., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lieven, E., Pine, J., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. MacWhinney, B. (2005). Emergent fossilization. Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 134–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mandel, D. R., Jusczyk, P. W., & Nelson, D. G. K. (1994). Does sentential prosody help infants organize and remember speech information? Cognition, 53(2), 155–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mishra, R. K., Singh, N., Pandey, A., & Huettig, F. (2012). Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye- movements are modulated by reading ability—Evidence from Indian low and high literates. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  43. Morais, J., Bertelson, P., Cary, L., & Alegria, J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24, 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90004-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading (pp. 52–77). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Newman, R., Ratner, N. B., Jusczyk, A. M., Jusczyk, P. W., & Dow, K. A. (2006a). Infants’ early ability to segment the conversational speech signal predicts later language development: a retrospective analysis. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 643–655.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Newman, R., Ratner, N. B., Jusczyk, A. M., Jusczyk, P. W., & Dow, K. A. (2006b). Infants’ early ability to segment the conversational speech signal predicts later language development: a retrospective analysis. Developmental Psychology, 42(July 2015), 643–655.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson, D. R. (1996). Towards a psychology of literacy: On the relations between speech and writing. Cognition, 60(1), 83–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Paul, J. Z., & Grüter, T. (2016). Blocking effects in the learning of Chinese classifiers. Language Learning, 66(4), 972–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ramscar, M., & Gitcho, N. (2007). Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood. Trends In Cognitive Science, 11(7), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ravid, D., & Malenky, A. (2001). Awareness of linear and nonlinear morphology in Hebrew: A developmental study. First Language, 21(61), 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of child language, 29(2), 417–447.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: a cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(5), 444–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Schneider, W. (2010). Memory development in childhood. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 347–376). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siegelman, N., & Arnon, I. (2015). The advantage of starting big: Learning from unsegmented input facilitates mastery of grammatical gender in an artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 60–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Singh, L., Reznick, S. J., & Xuehua, L. (2012). Infant word segmentation and childhood vocabulary development: A longitudinal analysis. Developmental science, 15(4), 482–495.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01141.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49(4), 1114–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sugiura, M. (2002). Collocational knowledge of L2 learners of English: A case study of Japanese learners. Language and Computers, 38(1), 303–323.Google Scholar
  59. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 77–97.Google Scholar
  60. Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2007). The impact of alphabetic print literacy level on oral second language acquisition. LESLLA Proceedings (pp 99–122).Google Scholar
  61. Thompson-Schill, S., Ramscar, M., & Chrysikou, M. (2009). Cognition without control: When a little frontal lobe goes a long way. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Veldhuis, D., & Kurvers, J. (2012). Offline segmentation and online language processing units: The influence of literacy. Written Language and Literacy, 15, 165–184.  https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.15.2.03vel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Cohen, L., Morais, J., Kolinsky, R., & Dehaene, S. (2013). Literacy acquisition reduces the influence of automatic holistic processing of faces and houses. Neuroscience Letters, 554, 105–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2013.08.068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Warwick, E. B., & Francis, M. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000629X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency (pp. 55–72). Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique, Dept d’Etudes Cognitives, ENSPSL University, EHESS, CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations