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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bassetti, B. (2005). In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Second language writing systems (pp. 335–356).

    Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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, TN

    Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lieven, E., Pine, J., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. MacWhinney, B. (2005). Emergent fossilization. Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 134–156.

    Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Olson, D. R. (1996). Towards a psychology of literacy: On the relations between speech and writing. Cognition, 60(1), 83–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Paul, J. Z., & Grüter, T. (2016). Blocking effects in the learning of Chinese classifiers. Language Learning, 66(4), 972–999.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ravid, D., & Malenky, A. (2001). Awareness of linear and nonlinear morphology in Hebrew: A developmental study. First Language, 21(61), 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of child language, 29(2), 417–447.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Warwick, E. B., & Francis, M. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000629X.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naomi Havron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Appendices

Appendix 1: The guidelines for scoring childrens paragraph reading from recordings

Scores were given in two scales, fluency and confidence. For each scale, the minimum score was 0 and the maximum score was 3, amounting to an overall score ranging from 0 to 6.

Fluency

0—Did not read the paragraph.

1—Read slowly, backtracked, did not understand what they were reading (this is sometimes obvious from how the experimenter is reacting), asked for help from the experimenter. Read words incorrectly and did not try to correct themselves.

2—Started slowly but picked up the pace. Still found it hard to decipher word meanings. Sometimes read the same thing twice, faster the second time.

3—Read comfortably, relatively fast, little difficulty in understanding.

Confidence

0—Did not read the paragraph.

1—Said they do not want to or cannot read (but still agreed to try). If a child did not finish reading the paragraph they will also be given 1, even if they did not hesitate to try.

2—Tried, but was uncertain of their abilities. Asked questions throughout the process. Tried and read (not fluently), but showed no confidence.

3—Approached the paragraph reading without hesitation.

Appendix 2: Stimuli used for the artificial language learning task

Table 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Havron, N., Raviv, L. & Arnon, I. Literate and preliterate children show different learning patterns in an artificial language learning task. J Cult Cogn Sci 2, 21–33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-018-0015-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Language learning
  • Literacy
  • Artificial language
  • Communication
  • Linguistic units