Abstract
Consonants and vowels play different roles in speech perception: listeners rely more heavily on consonant information rather than vowel information when distinguishing between words. This reliance on consonants for word identification is the consonant bias Nespor et al. (Ling 2:203–230, 2003). Several factors modulate infants’ development of the consonant bias, including fine-grained temporal processing ability and native language exposure [for review, see Nazzi et al. (Curr Direct Psychol Sci 25:291–296, 2016)]. A rat model demonstrated that mature fine-grained temporal processing alone cannot account for consonant bias emergence; linguistic exposure is also necessary Bouchon and Toro (An Cog 22:839–850, 2019). This study tested domestic dogs, who have similarly fine-grained temporal processing but more language exposure than rats, to assess whether a minimal lexicon and small degree of regular linguistic exposure can allow for consonant bias development. Dogs demonstrated a vowel bias rather than a consonant bias, preferring their own name over a vowel-mispronounced version of their name, but not in comparison to a consonant-mispronounced version. This is the pattern seen in young infants Bouchon et al. (Dev Sci 18:587–598, 2015) and rats Bouchon et al. (An Cog 22:839–850, 2019). In a follow-up study, dogs treated a consonant-mispronounced version of their name similarly to their actual name, further suggesting that dogs do not treat consonant differences as meaningful for word identity. These results support the findings from Bouchon and Toro (An Cog 2:839–850, 2019), suggesting that there may be a default preference for vowel information over consonant information when identifying word forms, and that the consonant bias may be a human-exclusive tool for language learning.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams CL, Molfese DL, Betz JC (1987) Electrophysiological correlates of categorical speech perception for voicing contrasts in dogs. Dev Neuropsychol 3(3–4):175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565648709540375
Andics A, Gácsi M, Faragó T, Kis A, Miklósi Á (2014) Voice-sensitive regions in the dog and human brain are revealed by comparative fMRI. Curr Biol 24(5):574–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.058
Andics A, Gábor A, Gácsi M, Faragó T, Szabó D, Miklósi Á (2016) Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science 353(6303):1030–1032. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3777
Bach JP, Lüpke M, Dziallas P, Wefstaedt P, Uppenkamp S, Seifert H, Nolte I (2016) Auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging in dogs - normalization and group analysis and the processing of pitch in the canine auditory pathways. BMC Vet Res 12(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0660-5
Ballem KD, Plunkett K (2005) Phonological specificity in children at 1;2. J Child Lang 32(1):159–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006567
Bonatti LL, Peña M, Nespor M, Mehler J (2005) Linguistic constraints on statistical computations. Psychol Sci 16(6):451–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01556.x
Bouchon C, Toro JM (2017) The origins of the consonant bias in word recognition: the case of Spanish-learning infants. Boston University conference on language development, Boston
Bouchon C, Toro JM (2019) Is the consonant bias specifically human? Long-evans rats encode vowels better than consonants in words. Anim Cogn 22(5):839–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01280-3
Bouchon C, Floccia C, Fux T, Adda-Decker M, Nazzi T (2015) Call me Alix, not Elix: vowels are more important than consonants in own-name recognition at 5 months. Dev Sci 18(4):587–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12242
Burnham D, Kitamura C, Vollmer-Conna U (2002) What’s new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296(5572):1435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069587
Cutler A, Mehler J (1993) The periodicity bias. J Phon 21(1–2):103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)31323-3
Cutler A, Sebastian-Galles N, Soler-Vilageliu O, Van Ooijen B (2000) Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory Cognit 28(5):746–755. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198409
Delle Luche C, Poltrock S, Goslin J, New B, Floccia C, Nazzi T (2014) Differential processing of consonants and vowels in the auditory modality: a cross-linguistic study. J Mem Lang 72:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.001
Fernald A (2016) Approval and disapproval: Infant responsiveness to vocal affect in familiar and unfamiliar languages. Soc Res Child Dev 64(3):657–674
Floccia C, Nazzi T, Delle Luche C, Poltrock S, Goslin J (2014) English-learning one- to two-year-olds do not show a consonant bias in word learning. J Child Lang 41(5):1085–1114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000287
Gerken LA, Jusczyk PW, Mandel DR (1994) When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds’ sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases. Cognition 51(3):237–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90055-8
Griebel U, Oller DK (2012) Vocabulary learning in a Yorkshire terrier: slow mapping of spoken words. PLoS ONE 7:2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030182
Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598):1634–1636. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702
Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2010) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evolut Commun 2(1):137–159. https://doi.org/10.1075/eoc.2.1.06har
Hochmann JR, Benavides-Varela S, Nespor M, Mehler J (2011) Consonants and vowels: different roles in early language acquisition. Dev Sci 14(6):1445–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01089.x
Hochmann JR, Benavides-Varela S, Fló A, Nespor M, Mehler J (2018) Bias for vocalic over consonantal information in 6-month-olds. Infancy 23(1):136–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12203
Højen A, Nazzi T (2016) Vowel bias in Danish word-learning: Processing biases are language-specific. Dev Sci 19(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12286
Horowitz A (2009) Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Anim Cogn 12(1):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0175-y
Jusczyk PW, Cutler A, Redanz NJ (1993) Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Soc Res Child Dev 64(3):675–687
Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304(5677):1682–1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097859
Keidel JL, Jenison RL, Kluender KR, Seidenberg MS (2007) Does grammar constrain statistical learning? Psychol Sci 18(10):922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02001.x
Kemler Nelson DG, Jusczyk PW, Mandel DR, Myers J, Turk A, Gerken L (1995) The head-turn preference for testing auditory perception. Infant Behav Dev 18:111–116
Kutsumi A, Nagasawa M, Ohta M, Ohtani N (2012) Importance of puppy training for future behavior of the dog. J Vet Med Sci 75(2):141–149. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.12-0008
Ladefoged P (2001) Vowel and consonants: an introduction to the sounds of language. Blackwell, Oxford
Mallikarjun A, Shroads E, Newman RS (2019a) Language discrimination in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Psychonomic Society, Montreal
Mallikarjun A, Shroads E, Newman RS (2019b) The cocktail party effect in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01255-4
Mani N, Plunkett K (2007) Phonological specificity of vowels and consonants in early lexical representations. J Mem Lang 57(2):252–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.005
Mehler J, Dupoux E, Nazzi T, Dehaene-Lambertz G (1996) Coping with linguistic diversity: The infant’s viewpoint. In: Morgan JL, Demuth K (eds) Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 101–116
Miklösi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050016
Most popular U.S. pet names of 2019 (2019) Retrieved from https://www.rover.com/blog/dog-names/
Nazzi T (2005) Use of phonetic specificity during the acquisition of new words: differences between consonants and vowels. Cognition 98(1):13–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.005
Nazzi T, Floccia C, Moquet B, Butler J (2009) Bias for consonantal information over vocalic information in 30-month-olds: Cross-linguistic evidence from French and English. J Exp Child Psychol 102(4):522–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.003
Nazzi T, Poltrock S, Von Holzen K (2016) The developmental origins of the consonant bias in lexical processing. Curr Direct Psychol Sci 25(4):291–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416655786
Nespor M, Peña M, Mehler J (2003) On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Ling 2(2):203–230. https://doi.org/10.1418/10879
Newman RS (2005) The cocktail party effect in infants revisited: listening to one’s name in noise. Dev Psychol 41(2):352–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.352
Newman RS (2009) Infants’ listening in multitalker environments: Effect of the number of background talkers. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(4):822–836. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP
Newman RS, Shroads E, Morini G, Johnson EK, Onishi KH, Tincoff R (2019) BITTSy: Behavioral infant and toddler testing system. Retrieved from https://go.umd.edu/BITTSy
Nishibayashi LL, Nazzi T (2016) Vowels, then consonants: early bias switch in recognizing segmented word forms. Cognition 155:188–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.003
Perez CA, Engineer CT, Jakkamsetti V, Carraway RS, Perry MS, Kilgard MP (2013) Different timescales for the neural coding of consonant and vowel sounds. Cereb Cortex 23(3):670–683. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs045
Pilley JW, Reid AK (2011) Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behav Proc 86(2):184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.11.007
Poltrock S, Nazzi T (2015) Consonant/vowel asymmetry in early word form recognition. J Exp Child Psychol 131:135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.011
Song S, Liu L, Edwards SV, Wu S (2012) Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics and the multispecies coalescent model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(37):14942–14947. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211733109
Thiessen ED, Yee MN (2010) Dogs, bogs, labs, and lads: What phonemic generalizations indicate about the nature of children’s early word-form representations. Child Dev 81(4):1287–1303
van Ooijen B (1996) Vowel mutability and lexical selection in english. Memory Cognit 24(5):573–583
Yip MJ (2006) The search for phonology in other species. Trend Cognit Sci 10(10):442–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.001
Funding
This study was not funded by a grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Amritha Mallikarjun, Emily Shroads, and Rochelle S. Newman all declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This study was approved by the University of Maryland Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (approval code: 1034861–8).
Informed consents
Informed consent was obtained from the owners of the dogs in the study. Informed consent was not required by the speakers who produced the dogs’ names.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mallikarjun, A., Shroads, E. & Newman, R.S. The role of linguistic experience in the development of the consonant bias. Anim Cogn 24, 419–431 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01436-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01436-6