2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Taal en Tongval
  4. Volume 77, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 77, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0039-8691
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1214
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

While sociolinguistic research has traditionally paid much attention to what social patterns underlie variation in language, the question of how language users learn the social meanings associated with linguistic variants is still largely underexplored. In that regard, the laboratory provides a controlled environment to isolate specific aspects of the acquisition process, whereas this is more difficult to accomplish in observational data due to its inherent complexity. In this paper, based on the PRISMA methodology for systematic reviews, we present a recently developed paradigm for lab-based investigation of artificial sociolinguistic language learning that may shed a different light on results obtained from observational work. We will first introduce the paradigm methodologically, followed by a summary of theoretical advances that were made based on studies within this paradigm. Finally, the review concludes with several nuances as to the application of the paradigm as well as open questions that may be addressed through it.

© Moira Van Puyvelde, Laura Rosseel, Eline Zenner & Dirk Speelman
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TET2025.1.002.PUYV
2025-03-01
2025-04-10
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, Cassandra, AmandaVenta and HillaryLangley. 2020. “The bilingual (dis)advantage.”Language and Cognition12, no. 2: 225-81. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/langcog.2019.43
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Yiran. 2023. “Regularization and probabilistic learning in the acquisition of linguistic variation.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, Yiran and KathrynSchuler. 2022. “Adults regularize variation when linguistic cues suggest low input reliability.”Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America7, no. 1: 5293. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v7i1.5293
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Docherty, Gerard and PaulFoulkes. 1999. “Newcastle upon Tyne and Derby: Instrumental phonetics and variationist studies.” In Urban voices, edited by PaulFoulkes and GerardDocherty, 47-71. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Docherty, Gerard and PaulFoulkes. 2014. “An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability.”Lingua142: 42-56. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.011
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Docherty, Gerard, ChristianLangstrof and PaulFoulkes. 2013. “Listener evaluation of sociophonetic variability: Probing constraints and capabilities.”Linguistics51, no. 2: 355-80. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1515/ling-2013-0014
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Drager, Katie and JoelleKirtley. 2016. “Awareness, salience, and stereotypes in exemplar-based models of speech production and perception.” In Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research, edited by Anna M.Babel, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Eckert, Penelope. 2008. “Variation and the indexical field.”Journal of Sociolinguistics12, no. 4: 453-76. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ettlinger, Marc, KaraMorgan-Short, MandyFaretta-Stutenberg and Patrick C.M.Wong. 2015. “The relationship between artificial and second language learning.”Cognitive Science40: 822-47. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/cogs.12257
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Farabolini, Gianmatteo, AnaliR. Taboh, Maria G.Ceravolo and FedericoGuerra. 2022. “The association between language exposure and nonword repetition performance in bilingual children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”Bilingualism: Language & Cognition26, no. 3: 621-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000906
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Farrús, Mireia. 2023. “Automatic Speech Recognition in L2 Learning: A Review Based on PRISMA Methodology.”Languages8: 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040242
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Foulkes, Paul. 2010. “Exploring social-indexical knowledge: A long past but a short history.”Laboratory Phonology1, no. 1: 5-39. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1515/labphon.2010.003
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Foulkes, Paul, Gerard J.Docherty and DominicWatt. 2005. “Phonological variation in child directed speech.”Phonetics34, no. 4: 409-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0018
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Harrington, Jonathan, SallyannePalethorpe and CatherineWatson. 2009. “Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: an Acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts.”Journal of the International Phonetic Association30, no. 1-2: 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300006666
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hogg, Michael A. and Graham M.Vaughan. 2008. Social Psychology (5th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hudson Kam, Carla L.2015. “The impact of conditioning variables on the acquisition of variation in adult and child learners.”Language91, no. 4: 906-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0051
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hudson Kam, Carla L.2021. “Adult learners‘ (non-)acquisition of speaker-specific variation.” In Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Acquisition across the Lifespan, edited by AnnaGhimenton, AurélieNardy and Jean-PierreChevrot, 295-315. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hudson Kam, Carla L. and Elissa L.Newport. 2009. “Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages.”Cognitive Psychology59, no. 1: 30-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kapnoula, Efthymia C. and Arthur G.Samuel. 2019. “Voices in the mental lexicon: Words carry indexical information that can affect access to their meaning.”Journal of Memory and Language107: 111-27. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jml.2019.05.001
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerswill, Paul and AnnWilliams. 2000. “Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes.”Language in Society29, no. 1: 65-115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001020
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Khattab, Ghada. 1999. “A socio-phonetic study of English-Arabic bilingual children.”Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics7, no. 1: 79-94.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lai, Wei, PéterRácz and GarethRoberts. 2020. “Experience With a Linguistic Variant Affects the Acquisition of Its Sociolinguistic Meaning: An Alien-Language-Learning Experiment.”Cognitive Science44, no. 4: e12832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12832
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Langstrof, Christian. 2014. Sociophonetic Learning in L1 and L2. Unpublished habilitation thesis, University of Freiburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lenneberg, Eric H.1967. “The Biological Foundations of Language.”Hospital Practice2, no. 12: 59-67. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1002/bs.3830130610
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Levon, Erez. 2006. “Hearing ‘gay’: Prosody, interpretation, and the affective judgments of men’s speech.”American Speech81, no. 1: 56-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-003
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, Aini and GarethRoberts. 2023. “Co-occurrence, extension and social salience: The emergence of indexicality in an artificial language.”Cognitive Science47, no. 5: e13290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13290
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Masullo, Camilla, VittoriaDentella and EvelinaLeivada. 2023. “73% of the observed bilingual (dis)advantageous effects on cognition stem from sociolinguistic factors: a systematic review.”Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, First View: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000664
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Moher, David, AlessandroLiberati, JenniferTetzlaff, Douglas G.Altman and PRISMA Group. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.”PLoS Medicine6: e1000097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Peirsman, Yves, DirkGeeraerts and DirkSpeelman. 2010. “The automatic identification of lexical variation between language varieties.”Natural Language Engineering16, no. 4: 469-91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324910000161
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Rácz, Péter, Jennifer B.Hay and Janet B.Pierrehumbert. 2017. “Social Salience Discriminates Learnability of Contextual Cues in an Artificial Language.”Frontiers in Psychology8: Article 51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00051
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rácz, Péter, Jennifer B.Hay and Janet B.Pierrehumbert. 2020. “Not All Indexical Cues Are Equal: Differential Sensitivity to Dimensions of Indexical Meaning in an Artificial Language.”Language Learning70, no. 3: 848-85. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1111/lang.12402
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Roberts, Gareth. 2017. “The linguist’s Drosophila: Experiments in language change.”Linguistics Vanguard3, no. 1: 20160086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0086
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Roberts, Julie. 1997. “Acquisition of variable rules: a study of (-t, d) deletion in preschool children.”Journal of Child Language24, no. 2: 351-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000997003073
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Roberts, Julie and William Labov. 1995. “Learning to talk Philadelphian: Acquisition of short a by preschool children.”Language Variation and Change7, no. 1: 101-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000910
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. The language of children and adolescents: the acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Samara, Anna, KennySmith, HelenBrown and ElizabethWonnacott. 2017. “Acquiring variation in an artificial language: Children and adults are sensitive to socially conditioned linguistic variation.”Cognitive Psychology94: 85-114. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.02.004
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Silverstein, Michael. 2003. “Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.”Language & Communication23: 193-229. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, Jennifer, MercedesDurham and LianeFortune. 2007. “‘Mam, ma troosers is fa’in doon!’ Community, caregiver and child in the acquisition of variation in Scottish dialect.”Language Variation and Change19, no. 1: 63-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394507070044
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, Jennifer, MercedesDurham and HazelRichards. 2013. “The social and linguistic in the acquisition of sociolinguistic norms: caregivers, children and variation.”Linguistics51, no. 2: 285-324. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1515/ling-2013-0012
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sneller, Betsy and GarethRoberts. 2018. “Why some behaviors spread while others don’t: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact.”Cognition170: 298-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.014
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Squires, Lauren. 2013. “It don’t go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception.”Journal of Sociolinguistics17, no. 2: 200-37. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1111/josl.12025
     [Google Scholar]
  43. St. Pierre, Thomas, JidaJaffan, Craig G.Chambers and Elizabeth K.Johnson. 2024. “The icing on the cake. Or is it frosting? The influence of group membership on children’s lexical choices.”Cognitive Science48, no. 2: e13410. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13410
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Van de Velde, Hans, Anne-FrancePinget, CeskoVoeten and DidierDemolin. 2021. “Laboratory Sociolinguistics. A Novel Approach to Language Variation.” In Cognitive Linguistics Revisited, edited by GitteKristiansen, KarlienFranco, StefanoDe Pascale, LauraRosseel and WeiweiZhang, 557-571. Berlin: De Gruyter/ Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Weatherhead, Drew and Katherine S.White. 2021. “Toddlers link social and speech variation during word learning.”Developmental Psychology57, no. 8: 1195-1209. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0001032
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wonnacott, Elizabeth, Elissa L.Newport and Michael K.Tanenhaus. 2008. “Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language.”Cognitive Psychology56, no. 3: 165-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2025.1.002.PUYV
Loading
Laboratory studies on artificial sociolinguistic language learning: A PRISMA systematic review
Taal en Tongval 77, 8 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2025.1.002.PUYV
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2025.1.002.PUYV
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2025.1.002.PUYV
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): acquisition; artificial language learning; laboratory experiments; PRISMA; sociolinguistic variation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error