REVIEWSEARLY LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:CRACKING THE SPEECH CODE
Patricia K. Kuhl
Abstract | Infants learn language with remarkable speed, but how they do it remains a mystery.
New data show that infants use computational strategies to detect the statistical and prosodic
patterns in language input, and that this leads to the discovery of phonemes and words. Social
interaction with another human being affects speech learning in a way that resembles
communicative learning in songbirds. The brain’s commitment to the statistical and prosodic
patterns that are experienced early in life might help to explain the long-standing puzzle of why
infants are better language learners than adults. Successful learning by infants, as well as
constraints on that learning, are changing theories of language acquisition.
STATISTICAL LEARNING

Acquisition of knowledge
through the computation of
information about the
distributional frequency withwhich certain items occur inrelation to others, orprobabilistic information insequences of stimuli, such as theodds (transitional probabilities)
that one unit will follow anotherin a given language.

Institute for Learning andBrain Sciences and theDepartment of Speech andHearing Sciences,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington 98195,
USA.
e-mail:pkkuhl@u.washington.edu
doi:10.1038/nrn1533

The acquisition of language and speech seems deceptively simple. Young children learn their mother tongue
rapidly and effortlessly, from babbling at 6 months of age
to full sentences by the age of 3 years, and follow the samedevelopmental path regardless of culture (FIG. 1). Linguists, psychologists and neuroscientists have struggled to
explain how children do this, and why it is so regular if
the mechanism of acquisition depends on learning andenvironmental input. This puzzle, coupled with the
failure of artificial intelligence approaches to build acomputer that learns language, has led to the idea thatspeech is a deeply encrypted ‘code’. Cracking the speechcode is child’s play for human infants but an unsolved
problem for adult theorists and our machines.Why?
During the last decade there has been an explosionof information about how infants tackle this task. The
new data help us to understand why computers havenot cracked the human linguistic code and shed lighton a long-standing debate about the origins of languagein the child. Infants’ strategies are surprising and arealso unpredicted by the main historical theorists.
Infants approach language with a set of initial perceptual
abilities that are necessary for language acquisition,although not unique to humans. They then learn rapidly
from exposure to language, in ways that are unique tohumans, combining pattern detection and computational abilities (often called STATISTICAL LEARNING) withspecial social skills. An absence of early exposure to the

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

patterns that are inherent in natural language —whether spoken or signed — produces life-long changes
in the ability to learn language.
Infants’ perceptual and learning abilities are also
highly constrained. Infants cannot perceive all physicaldifferences in speech sounds, and are not computationalslaves to learning all possible stochastic patterns inlanguage input. Moreover, and of equal importancefrom a neurobiological perspective, social constraints
limit the settings in which learning occurs. The fact that
infants are ‘primed’ to learn the regularities of linguistic
input when engaged in social exchanges puts language
in a neurobiological framework that resembles communicative learning in other species, such as songbirds, andhelps us to address why non-human animals do notadvance further towards language. The constraints on
infants’ abilities to perceive and learn are as importantto theory development as are their successes.
Recent neuropsychological and brain imaging work
indicates that language acquisition involves NEURALCOMMITMENT. Early in development, learners commit thebrain’s neural networks to patterns that reflect natural
language input. This idea makes empirically testablepredictions about how early learning supports andconstrains future learning, and holds that the basic
elements of language, learned initially, are pivotal. The
concept of neural commitment is linked to the issue ofa ‘critical’ or ‘sensitive’ period for language acquisition.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 3 1

REVIEWS

Universal speech perception
Language-specific speech perception
Sensory learning
Language-specificperception for vowels

Decline in foreign-language
consonant perception

Recognition of
language-specificsound combinations

Statisticallearning(transitional
probabilities)

Statistical learning(distributionalfrequencies)

Infants discriminate
phonetic contrastsof all languages

Detection of typicalstress pattern in words

Increase innative-language
consonantperception

Perception
Production 0

1

2

3

4

5

Infants produce
non-speech sounds

6

7

8

'Canonical babbling'

Infants produce
vowel-like sounds

9

10

11

12 Time(months)

First words produced

Language-specific speech production
Sensory–motor learning
Language-specific speech production

Universal speech production

Figure 1 | The universal language timeline of speech-perception and speech-production development. This figure shows
the changes that occur in speech perception and production in typically developing human infants during their first year of life.
NEURAL COMMITMENT

Learning results in acommitment of the brain’s
neural networks to the patternsof variation that describe aparticular language. Thislearning promotes further
learning of patterns that
conform to those initiallylearned, while interfering withthe learning of patterns that do
not conform to those initiallylearned.

The idea is that the initial coding of native-language
patterns eventually interferes with the learning of
new patterns (such as those of a foreign language),
because they do not conform to the established ‘mental
filter’. So, early learning promotes future learning that
conforms to and builds on the patterns already learned,
but limits future learning of patterns that do not conformto those already learned.
The encryption problem

PHONEMES

Elements of a language that
distinguish words by forming
the contrasting element in pairsof words in a given language (forexample,‘rake’–‘lake’;‘far’–‘fall’). Languages combine
different phonetic units intophonemic categories; forexample, Japanese combines the‘r’ and ‘l’ units into one
phonemic category.
PHONETIC UNITS

The set of specific articulatory
gestures that constitute vowels
and consonants in a particularlanguage. Phonetic units aregrouped into phonemic
categories. For example,‘r’ and ‘l’are phonetic units that, inEnglish, belong to separate
phonemic categories.
CATEGORIZATIONIn speech perception, the ability
to group perceptually distinct
sounds into the same category.
Unlike computers, infants canclassify as similar phonetic units
spoken by different talkers, atdifferent rates of speech and indifferent contexts.

Sorting out the sounds. The world’s languages containmany basic elements — around 600 consonants and200 vowels1. However, each language uses a unique setof only about 40 distinct elements, called PHONEMES,
which change the meaning of a word (for example,
from ‘bat’ to ‘pat’). These phonemes are actually groups
of non-identical sounds, called PHONETIC UNITS, that arefunctionally equivalent in the language. The infant’s task
is to make some progress in figuring out the composition of the 40 or so phonemic categories before trying toacquire words on which these elementary units depend.
Three early discoveries inform us about the nature of
the innate skills that infants bring to the task of phonetic
learning and about the timeline of early learning. The
first, called categorical perception, focused on discrimination of the acoustic events that distinguish phonetic
units (BOX 1)2. Eimas and colleagues showed that young
infants are especially sensitive to acoustic changes at thephonetic boundaries between categories, including
those of languages they have never heard3–6. Infants candiscriminate among virtually all the phonetic units usedin languages, whereas adults cannot 7. The acoustic
differences on which this depends are tiny. A change of
10 ms in the time domain changes /b/ to /p/, and equivalently small differences in the frequency domain change/p/ to /k/ (REF. 8). Infants can discriminate these subtle
differences from birth, and this ability is essential for the

8 3 2 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5

acquisition of language. However, categorical perception
also shows that infant perception is constrained. Infants
do not discriminate all physically equal acoustic differences; they show heightened sensitivity to those that areimportant for language.
Although categorical perception is a building blockfor language, it is not unique to humans. Non-humanmammals — such as chinchillas and monkeys — also
partition sounds where languages place phonetic boundaries9–11. In humans, non-speech sounds that mimic theacoustic properties of speech are also partitioned inthis way12,13. I have previously argued that the match
between basic auditory perception and the acoustic
boundaries that separate phonetic categories in humanlanguages is not fortuitous: general auditory perceptual
abilities provided ‘basic cuts’ that influenced the choiceof sounds for the phonetic repertoire of the world’s
languages14,15. The development of these languages
capitalized on natural auditory discontinuities. However,the basic cuts provided by audition are primitive, andonly roughly partition sounds. The exact locations ofphonetic boundaries differ across languages, and exposure to a specific language sharpens infants’ perceptionof stimuli near phonetic boundaries in that language16,17.
According to this argument, auditory perception, adomain-general skill, initially constrained choices at thephonetic level of language during its evolution. This
ensured that, at birth, infants are prepared to discern
differences between phonetic contrasts in any natural
language14,15.
As well as discriminating the elementary sounds thatare used in language, infants must learn to perceptuallygroup different sounds that they clearly hear as distinct(BOX 2). This is the problem of CATEGORIZATION18. In anatural environment, infants hear sounds that varyon many dimensions (for example, talker, rate and phonetic context). At an early age, infants can categorize

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWS

Box 1 | What is categorical perception?

speech sounds despite such changes19–23. By contrast,computers are, so far, unable to recognize phonetic similarity in this way24. This is a necessary skill if infants are toimitate speech and learn their ‘mother tongue’25.
Infants’ initial universal ability to distinguishbetween phonetic units must eventually give way to alanguage-specific pattern of listening. In Japanese, thephonetic units ‘r’ and ‘l’ are combined into a single
phonemic category (Japanese ‘r’), whereas in English,
the difference is preserved (‘rake’ and ‘lake’); similarly, in
English, two Spanish phonetic units (distinguishing‘bala’ from ‘pala’) are united in a single phonemic category. Infants can initially distinguish these sounds4–6,
and Werker and colleagues investigated when the infant‘citizens of the world’ become ‘culture-bound’ listeners26.
They showed that English-learning infants could easily
discriminate Hindi and Salish sounds at 6 months ofage, but that this discrimination declined substantiallyby 12 months of age. English-learning infants at 12
months have difficulty in distinguishing between
sounds that are not used in English26,27. Japanese infants
find the English r–l distinction more difficult28,29, andAmerican infants’ discrimination declines for botha Spanish30 and a Mandarin distinction31, neither ofwhich is used in English. At the same time, the abilityof infants to discriminate native-language phonetic
units improves30,32,33.
Computational strategies. What mechanism is responsible for the developmental change in phonetic perception
between the ages of 6 and 12 months? One hypothesis isthat infants analyse the statistical distributions of sounds
that they hear in ambient language.Although adult listeners hear ‘r’ and ‘l’ as either distinct (English speakers) or

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

4–
7
5–
8
6–
9
7–
10
8–
11
9–
12
10
–1
5

1–
4
2–
5
3–
6

Percent correct

Percent responses [ra]Categorical perception is the tendency for adult listeners
100of a particular language to classify the sounds used intheir languages as one phoneme or another, showing no
sensitivity to intermediate sounds. Laboratory50
demonstrations of this phenomenon involve two tasks,
identification and discrimination. Listeners are asked to
identify each sound from a series generated by a0
computer. Sounds in the series contain acoustic cues that
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
Stimulus number
vary in small, physically equal steps from one phonetic
unit to another, for example in 13 steps from /ra/ to /la/.
100
AmericanIn this example, both American and Japanese listeners
90
Japanese7
are tested . Americans distinguish the two sounds and80
identify them as a sequence of /ra/ syllables that changes
70
to a sequence of /la/ syllables. Even though the acoustic
60
step size in the series is physically equal, American
50
listeners do not hear a change until stimulus 7 on thecontinuum. When Japanese listeners are tested, they do
40
not hear any change in the stimuli. All the sounds are
0
identified as the same — the Japanese ‘r’.
When pairs of stimuli from the series are presented toDiscriminated pairlisteners, and they are asked to identify the sound pairs as‘same’ or ‘different’, the results show that Americans are most sensitive to acoustic differences at the boundary between /r/and /l/ (dashed line). Japanese adults’ discrimination values hover near chance all along the continuum. Figure modified,with permission, from REF. 7 © (1975) The Psychonomic Society.

identical (Japanese), speakers of both languages produce
highly variable sounds. Japanese adults produce both
English r- and l-like sounds, so Japanese infants are
exposed to both. Similarly, in Swedish there are 16 vowels,whereas English uses 10 and Japanese uses only 5 (REFS
34,35), but speakers of these languages produce a wide
range of sounds36. It is the distributional patterns of suchsounds that differ across languages37,38.When the acoustic
features of speech are analysed, modal values occur wherelanguages place phonemic categories, whereas distributional frequencies are low at the borders between categories. So, distributional patterns of sounds provide clues
about the phonemic structure of a language39,40. If infants
are sensitive to the relative distributional frequencies ofphonetic segments in the language that they hear, andrespond to all instances near a modal value by grouping
them, this would assist ‘category learning’.
Experiments on 6-month-old infants indicate that
this is the case (FIG. 2). Kuhl and colleagues41 tested
6-month-old American and Swedish infants with prototype vowel sounds from both languages (FIG. 2a). Both theAmerican-English prototype and the Swedish prototype
were synthesized by computer and, by varying the critical acoustic components in small steps, 32 variants ofeach prototype were created. The infants listened to theprototype vowel (either English or Swedish) presented as
the background stimulus, and were trained to respondwith a head-turn when they heard the prototype vowelchange to one of its variants (FIG. 2b). The hypothesis
was that infants would show a ‘perceptual magnet
effect’ for native-language sounds, because prototypicalsounds function like magnets for surrounding sounds42.
The perceptual magnet effect is hypothesized toreflect prototype learning in cognitive psychology43.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 3 3

REVIEWS

Box 2 | Why is speech categorization difficult?
i

3,400

3,000

Second formant (Hz)

2,600

2,200

1,800

1,400

1,000

i

i

i

i
i
ii i
i
i
i i
i
ii i
i i i ii
ii
i
i ii i i i
i
ii
i
i
i i
ae
i ii i i i iiiiaei i i i i l l
iiii
li l ae
ae
ae
i i i
l
i
aeae
l l aeae
ae aeaei i l l
l
ae
l
ae
l l
ae
ae ae
i
i l l l l l lael
i
ae
ae
ae
aeae
i l lli iae εlaeae aei
ae ae εaeil l l ll lε aeεae ae ae
ae
ae
ε
ae
ε
i
ae
l
ae
ii i i i iae aeaeae
l ll
ae ε
l
ae
ae
ae
l
ll l
l ε
ae ae ε εaei i iiεε εlae ae εae aeae aei i l l l l lliεεεae ε εεae ae
l l
ii
ae ε
ll
l
ε
ae εaeε εε ae εε εil lll ae ε ae ae
ε
l
ll
lae
i
εae εε ε εεaeii i l l ll ll l
ε
ε
ae
ε
ε
ε
ae
i l l
i
l ae aeaeaeae ε ae ε ε εε ε ε
a
l ll
ae
ε
ae
εε3 ε εε εl l 3εll l lal
εaeε aeaeaeε 3
ε ε^
a
3
l
3
ε
ε
U
ε
a
l
u
3 ae εU ae
aa
ae
ae
a
l
ε εε
3
3 3
^
a
ε
a
a
^
a
a
ε 3 aeu u u3 3 U
ε U
^a
a
3
^ aa
^
aa
aa a
u 33
a a
3ε 3 3 3
3^
UU U ε^3 ^3 3U ^ ^ ^a ^ ^ a ^ ^ a a aa a a ^3u 3 3 U3 3 UUU
U
^
a
a
3
^
3
3
3
a
3
3
^
a
^
a
a
u
a
a
a
a aa
^
^
a
^
^
3u 33 3 u 3U33UU3 33U 3UU
^
a
a
a
a
^^ a
U
u3 u
^ a^
a a
^a
^
U3 3 U ^Uu u 3 33U^^ ^ a a^a
c a a
a ^ ^
3 3U3 U33 uU uU U
uu
a
c
ac aa
^a ^ c^ a aaa
^U ^
u
u
3
3
a
U u ^ ^U ^ a a ^u U 3 3u3Ua^ca c ac c^U3 3 u U U U ^ ^^^u
3Uu Uu UU
a cc c c ca a^^ ^ ^u uU ^ ^ ^ ^c
U U Uu U ^ ^^^ c
Uu U U U
u uu
c cc
cc
U
U
c
c
U
U
U
U
u
u
c
c
u
^
c
u
^ c
c
u uuu u u U U Uc c c ca cc cuuu u uUuc cc
c c cc ccu u u Uu uUu u
c
u
u u
cc c
u
u
u
c
u u
u uu
u
u u

a

a a
a a

a

a

600
300

450

600

750

900

1,050

1,200

First formant (Hz)Phonemic categories are composed of finite sets of phonetic units. Phonetic units are
difficult to define physically because every utterance, even of the same phonetic unit, isacoustically distinct. Different talkers, rates of speech and contexts all contribute to thevariability observed in speech.

Talker variability
When different talkers produce the same phonetic unit, such as a simple vowel, theacoustic results (FORMANT FREQUENCIES) vary widely. This is because of the variability in
vocal tract size and shape, and is especially different when men, women and children
produce the same phonetic unit. In the drawing, each ellipse represents an English vowel,
and each symbol within the circle represents one person’s production35.

Rate variability
Slow speech results in different acoustic properties from faster speech, making physicaldescriptions of phonetic units difficult22.

Context variability
The acoustic values of a phonetic unit change depending on the preceding and following
phonemes23.
These variations make it difficult to rely on absolute acoustic values to determine thephonetic category of a particular speech sound. Despite all of these sources of variability,
infants perceive phonetic similarity across talkers, rates and contexts19–23. By contrast,
current computer speech-recognition systems cannot recognize phonetic similarity when
the talker, rate and context change24. Figure reproduced, with permission, from REF. 35 ©
(1995) Acoustical Society of America.

FORMANT FREQUENCIES

Frequency bands in whichenergy is highly concentrated inspeech. Formant locations foreach phonetic unit are distinct
and depend on vocal tract shapeand tongue position. Formants
are numbered from lowest
frequencies to highest: F1, F2
and so on.

The results confirmed this prediction —the infants did
show a perceptual magnet effect for their native vowel
category (FIG. 2c). American infants perceptually grouped
the American vowel variants together, but treated theSwedish vowels as less unified. Swedish infants reversed
the pattern, perceptually grouping the Swedish variants
more than the American vowel stimuli. The results wereassumed to reflect infants’ sensitivities to the distributional properties of sounds in their language39.
Interestingly, monkeys did not show a prototype magnet
effect for vowels42, indicating that the effect in humans
was unique, and required linguistic experience.

8 3 4 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5

Infants can also learn from distributional patterns inlanguage input after short-term exposure to phonetic
stimuli (FIG. 2). Maye and colleagues40 exposed 6- and8-month-old infants for about 2 min to 8 sounds thatformed a series (FIG. 2d). Infants were familiarized withstimuli on the entire continuum, but experienced different distributional frequencies. A ‘bimodal’ group heard
more frequent presentations of stimuli at the ends of thecontinuum; a ‘unimodal’ group heard more frequent
presentations of stimuli from the middle of the continuum. After familiarization, infants were tested using a
listening preference technique (FIG. 2e). The results supported the hypothesis that infants at this age are sensitive
to distributional patterns (FIG. 2f); infants in the bimodalgroup discriminated the two sounds, whereas those in theunimodal group did not. Further work on distributionalcues shows that infants learn the PHONOTACTIC PATTERNS oflanguage, rules that govern the sequences of phonemesthat can be used to compose words. By 9 months of age,
infants discriminate between phonetic sequences that
occur frequently and those that occur less frequently inambient language44. These findings show that statisticallearning involving distributional patterns in language
input assists language learning at the phonetic level in
infants.
Discovering words. The phonemes of English are used
to create about half a million words. Reading written
words that lack spaces between them gives some senseof the task that infants face in identifying spoken
words (BOX 3). Without the spaces, printed words
merge and reading becomes difficult. Similarly,
although conversational speech provides someacoustic breaks, these do not reliably signal wordboundaries. When we listen to another language, we
perceive the words as run together and spoken too
quickly. Without any obvious boundaries, how can an
infant discover where one word ends and anotherbegins? Field linguists have spent decades attempting to
identify the words used by speakers of a specific language. Children learn implicitly. By 18 months of age,
75% of typically developing children understand about
150 words and can successfully produce 50 words45.
Computational approaches to words. Word segmentationis also advanced by infants’ computational skills. Infants
are sensitive to the sequential probabilities between
adjacent syllables, which differ within and across wordboundaries. Consider the phrase ‘pretty baby’; among
English words, the probability that ‘ty’ will follow ‘pre’ ishigher than the probability that ‘bay’ will follow ‘ty’. If
infants are sensitive to adjacent transitional probabilities
in continuous speech, they might be able to parse speechand discover that pretty is a potential word, even before
they understand its meaning.
Saffran and colleagues have shown how readily
infants use sequential probabilities to detect words46,
greatly advancing an initial study that indicated that
infants are sensitive to this kind of information. In theinitial study47, 8-month-old infants were presented withthree-syllable strings made up of the syllables ‘ko’, ‘ga’,

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWSa Vowel stimuli

d Familiarization stimuli
20

1,800

/i/ prototype

1,700
1,600

/y/ prototype

1,500
1,400
100

200

300

400

Familiarization
frequency

Formant 2 (Hz)1,900

Unimodal

Bimodal

16
12
8
4

0

500 600

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Continuum of 'da-ta' stimuli

Formant 1 (Hz)b Head-turn procedure

e Auditory preference procedure

Test stimuli: token 3 or 6 (repeating);
tokens 1 and 8 (alternating)c Percent of variants equated to prototypef Mean looking time byAmerican /i/
Swedish /y/80

Percent

70
60

Chance50
40
30American infants

Swedish infants

Mean looking time (s)familiarization and trial types
8

Alternating
Repeating

6
4
2

Unimodal

BimodalFamiliarization condition

Figure 2 | Two experiments showing infant learning from exposure to the distributional
patterns in language input. a | The graph shows differences in formant frequencies between
vowel sounds representing variants of the English /i/ and the Swedish /y/ vowels used in tests on
6-month-old American and Swedish infants. b | Head-turn testing procedure: infants hear arepeating prototype vowel (English or Swedish) while being entertained with toys; they are trained
to turn their heads away from the assistant when they hear the prototype vowel change, and are
rewarded for doing so with the sight of an animated toy animal. Head-turn responses to variants
indicate discrimination from the prototype. c | Infants perceive more variants as identical to theprototype for native-language vowel categories, indicating that linguistic experience increases theperception of similarity among members of a phonetic category41. d | In another study, infants arefamiliarized for 2 min with a series of ‘da-ta’ stimuli, with higher frequencies of either stimuli 2 and7 (bimodal group) or stimuli 4 and 5 (unimodal group). e | Auditory preference procedure: twotypes of auditory stimulus, alternating 1 and 8, or repeating 3 or 6, are presented sequentially,
along with visual stimuli to elicit attention. Looking time to each type of stimulus is measured;significantly different looking times indicate discrimination. f | Infants in the bimodal group looked
for significantly longer during the repeating trials than during alternating trials, whereas infants inthe unimodal condition showed no preference, indicating that only infants in the bimodal condition
discriminated the ‘da-ta’ end-point stimuli40. Panels a and c modified, with permission, from
REF. 41 © (1992) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Panels d and f modified,with permission, from REF. 40 (2002) © Elsevier Science.

PHONOTACTIC PATTERNSSequential constraints, or rules,
governing permissible strings ofphonemes in a given language.
Each language allows different
sequences. For example, thecombination ‘zb’ is not
permissible in English, but is alegal combination in Polish.

and ‘de’ (FIG. 3a). Three groups of infants were tested, andthe arrangement of the syllables ‘ko’ and ‘ga’ was manipulated across groups. For one group, they occurred in an
invariant order,‘koga’, with transitional probabilities of
1.0 between two syllables, as would be the case if theunit formed a word. For the second group, the order of
the two syllables was variable, ‘koga’ and ‘gako’, with atransitional probability of 0.50. For the control group,
one syllable was repeated twice,‘koko’, consistent with aword, but not one that allowed a transitional probability
strategy. The third syllable,‘de’, occurred before or after
the two-syllable combination. The three syllables werematched on all other acoustic cues (duration, loudness
and pitch) so that parsing could not be based on someother aspect of the syllables. The infants’ task was to

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

respond when the third syllable in the string, ‘de’,changed to ‘ti’ (FIG. 3b). Perceiving a phonetic change in atrisyllabic string is difficult for infants at this age, eventhough they readily discriminate the two syllables inisolation48. The experiment tested whether infants canuse transitional probabilities to ‘chunk’ the input, andwhether doing so reduced the perceptual demands ofphonetic processing in adjacent syllables. Infants in theinvariant group performed significantly better than
infants in the other two groups, whose performance did
not differ from one another (FIG. 3c), indicating that only
infants in the invariant group perceived ‘koga’ as aword-like unit, which made discrimination of ‘de’ and‘ti’ significantly easier.
Saffran and colleagues49 firmly established that
8-month-old infants can learn word-like units on thebasis of transitional probabilities. They played to infants
2-minute strings of computer synthesized speech (forexample,‘tibudopabikugolatudaropi’) that contained nobreaks, pauses, stress differences or intonation contours(FIG. 3d). The transitional probabilities were 1.0 among
the syllables contained in four pseudo-words that madeup the string ‘tibudo’, ‘pabiku’, ‘golatu’ and ‘daropi’, and0.33 between other adjacent syllables. To detect thewords embedded in the strings, infants had to track
the statistical relations among adjacent syllables. After
exposure, infants were tested for listening preferenceswith two of the original words and two part-words
formed by combining syllables that crossed wordboundaries (for example,‘tudaro’ — the last syllable of‘golatu’ and the first two of ‘daropi’) (FIG. 3e). The infants
showed an expected novelty preference, indicating thatthey detected the statistical regularities in the original
stimuli by preferring stimuli that violated that structure(FIG. 3f). Further studies showed that this was due not to
infants’ calculation of the frequencies of occurrence, butrather to the probabilities specified by the sequences ofsounds50. So, 2 min of exposure to continuous syllable
strings is sufficient for infants to detect word candidates,
indicating a potential mechanism for word learning.
These specific statistical learning skills are not
restricted to language or to humans. Infants can track
adjacent transitional probabilities in tone sequences51
and in visual patterns52,53, and monkeys can track
adjacent dependencies in speech when Saffran’s stimuli
are used54.
PROSODIC CUES also help infants to identify potential
word candidates and are prominent in natural speech.
About 90% of English multisyllabic words in conversational speech begin with linguistic stress on the firstsyllable, as in the words ‘pencil’ and ‘stapler’ (REF. 55).
This strong–weak (trochaic) pattern is the opposite ofthat used in languages such as Polish, in which a weak–strong (iambic) pattern predominates. All languages
contain words of both kinds, but one pattern typically
predominates. At 7.5 months of age, English-learning
infants can segment words from speech that reflect thestrong–weak pattern, but not the weak–strong pattern— when such infants hear ‘guitar is’ they perceive‘taris’ as the word-like unit, because it begins with astressed syllable56.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 3 5

REVIEWS

Box 3 | How do infants find words?
Unlike written language, spoken language has no reliable markers to indicate wordboundaries.Acoustic analysis of speech shows that there are no obvious breaks between
syllables or words in the phrase:‘There are no silences between words’(a).
Word segmentation in printed text would be equally difficult if the spaces between
words were removed. The continuous string of letters below could be broken up in two
different ways, as shown in b.
a Spoken: with no markers"There are no silences between words"

ThereAre

NoS

ilen

ces

Bet

weenWordsb Printed text: with no markers
THEREDONATEAKETTLEOFTENCHIPS
THE RED ON A TEA KETTLE OFTEN CHIPS or THERE, DON ATE A KETTLE OF TEN CHIPSPROSODIC CUES

Pitch, tempo, stress andintonation, qualities that aresuperimposed on phonemes,
syllables, words and phrases.
These cues convey differences inmeaning (statements versus
questions), word stress (trochaic
versus iambic), speaking styles(infant- versus adult-directedspeech) and the emotional stateof a speaker (happy versus sad).

Natural speech also contains statistical cues. Johnson
and Jusczyk57 pitted prosodic cues against statistical ones
by familiarizing infants with strings of syllables thatprovided conflicting cues. Syllables that ended words
by statistical rules received word-initial stress cues
(they were louder and longer, and had a higher pitch).
They found that infants’ strategies change with age; at
8 months, infants recover words from the strings on thebasis of initial-word stress rather than statistical cues57,58.
By contrast, at 7 months, they use statistical rather thanprosodic cues59. How infants combine the two probabilistic cues, neither of which provides deterministic
information in natural speech, will be a fruitful topic for
future investigation.
How far can statistical cues take infants? Do these
initial statistical strategies account for the acquisitionof linguistic rules? At present, studies are focused on
infants’ computational limitations; if infants detectstatistical regularities only in adjacent units, they would
be severely limited in acquiring linguistic rules by statistical means. Non-adjacent dependencies are essential for
detecting more complex relations, such as noun–verb
agreement, and these specific relations are acquired only
later in development60,61.
Newport and colleagues62 have shown that adults candetect non-adjacent dependencies in the kinds of syllable strings used by Saffran when they involve segments(consonants or vowels) but not syllables. By contrast,
Old World monkeys can detect non-adjacent syllable
dependencies and segmental ones that involve vowels,
but not consonants63. Infants apparently cannot detect
non-adjacent dependencies in the specific kinds ofcontinuous strings used by Saffran63.
However, there is some evidence that young children
can detect non-adjacencies such as those required tolearn grammar. Gomez and colleagues played artificial
word strings (for example, ‘vot-pel-jic-rud-tam’) to
12-month-olds for 50–127 s to investigate whether they

8 3 6 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5

could learn the rules that specified word order64,65. Twogrammars were used to generate the word strings.
The grammars used the same word units and produced
sequences that began and ended with the same words,
but word order within the strings varied. After exposure
to one of the artificial languages, infants preferred tolisten to new words specifying the unfamiliar grammar,
indicating that they had learned word-order rules fromthe grammar that they had previously experienced. The
word items used during familiarization were not thoseused to test the infants, showing that infants can generalize their learning to a new set of words — they canlearn abstract patterns that do not rely on memory forspecific instances.
Similarly, Marcus showed that 7-month-olds can learn
sequences of either an ABB (‘de-li-li’) or ABA (‘we-di-we’)form, and that they can extend this pattern learning to
new sequences, a skill that was argued to require learningof algebraic rules66,67. It has been proposed that infants
compute two kinds of statistics, one arithmetic and theother algebraic66,67; however, experimentally differentiating the two is difficult68,69. Further tests are required todetermine whether infants are learning rules or statisticalregularities in these studies.
Social influences on language learning

Computational learning indicates that infants learn
simply by being exposed to the right kind of auditory
information — even in a few minutes of auditory exposure in the laboratory40,47,49. However, natural language
learning might require more, and different, kinds ofinformation. The results of two studies — one involving
speech-perception learning and the other speechproduction learning — indicate that social interaction
assists language learning in complex settings. In bothspeech production and speech perception, the presenceof a human being interacting with a child has a strong
influence on learning. These findings are reminiscent of
the constraints observed in communication learning insongbirds70,71.
The impact of social interaction on human language
learning has been dramatically illustrated by the few
instances in which children have been raised in social
isolation; these cases have shown that social deprivation
has a severe and negative impact on language development, to the extent that normal language skills arenever acquired72. In children with autism, language andsocial deficits are tightly coupled — aberrant neural
responses to speech are strongly correlated with aninterest in listening to non-speech signals as opposed tospeech signals73. Speech is strongly preferred in typicallydeveloping children74. Social deprivation, whether
imposed by humans or caused by atypical brain function, has a devastating effect on language acquisition.
Theories of social learning in typically developing children have traditionally emphasized the importance ofsocial interaction on language learning75,76. Recent data
and theory posit that language learning is grounded inchildren’s appreciation of others’ communicative intentions, their sensitivity to joint visual attention and their
desire to imitate77.

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWSa Trisyllabic stimuli

d Continous stream stimuli

Background stimuli
Invariant order:
dekoga, kogade
Variable order:
dekoga, gakode
Redundant order: dekoko, kokode

Change stimuli
tikoga, kogati
tigako, kogati
tikoko, kokoti

Familliarization:pabikutibudogolatupabikudaropi…

e Auditory preference procedure

Test stimuli: 'de' versus 'ti'

Test stimuli: 'tudaro' (part-word) versus'pabiku' (word)

c Discrimination performancef Mean listening times
875
60
Chance45

Seconds

Percent correctb Head-turn procedure

7
6
5
4

30
InvariantVariable

Redundant

Part-words

Words

Figure 3 | Two experiments showing infant learning of word-like stimuli on the basis oftransitional probabilities between adjacent syllables. a | Trisyllabic stimuli used to test
infant learning of word-like units using transitional probabilities between the syllables ‘ko’ and‘ga’. In one group they occurred in an invariant order, with transitional probabilities of 1.0; in asecond group they were heard in a variable order, with transitional probablilities of 0.50. A
redundant order group served as a control. In all goups, the third syllable making up eachword-like unit was ‘de’. b | The head-turn testing procedure was used to test infants’ detectionof a change from the syllable ‘de’ to the syllable ‘ti’ in all groups. c | Only the invariant groupperformed above chance on the task, indicating that the infants in this group recognized ‘koga’
as a word-like unit47. d | A continuous stream of syllables used to test the detection of wordlike stimuli that were created from four words (different colours), the syllable transitional
probabilities of which were 1.0. All other adjacent transitional probabilities were 0.33. e | After a2-min familiarization period, blinking lights above the side speakers were used to attract the
infant’s attention. Once the infant’s head turned towards the light, either a word or a part-word
was played and repeated until the infant looked away, and the total amount of looking time
was measured. Discrimination was indicated by significantly different looking times for words
and part-words. f | Infants preferred new part-words, indicating that they had learned theoriginal words49.

A study that compared live social interaction with
televised foreign-language material showed the impact
of social interaction on language learning in infants31.
The study was designed to test whether infants canlearn from short-term exposure to a natural foreign
language.
Nine-month-old American infants listened to four
native speakers of Mandarin during 12 sessions inwhich the speakers read books to the infants and talked
about toys that they showed to the infants (FIG. 4a). Afterthe sessions, infants were tested with a Mandarin phonetic contrast that does not occur in English to see
whether exposure to the foreign language had reversed
the usual decline in infants’ foreign-language speech
perception (FIG. 4b). The results showed that infants
learned during the live sessions, compared with a control
group that heard only English (FIG. 4c)31.
To test whether such learning depends on live
human interaction, a new group of infants saw the same
Mandarin speakers on a television screen or heard themover loudspeakers (FIG. 4a). The auditory statistical cues
available to the infants were identical in the televised
and live settings, as was the use of ‘motherese’78,79 (BOX 4). If
simple auditory exposure to language prompts learning,

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

the presence of a live human being would not be essential. However, the infants’ Mandarin discrimination
scores after exposure to televised or audiotaped speakers
were no greater than those of the control infants; bothgroups differed significantly from the live-exposuregroup (FIG. 4c). Infants are apparently not computational
automatons — rather, they might need a social tutor
when learning natural language.
Social influences on language learning are also seen
in studies of speech production80–82. Goldstein et al.
showed that social feedback modulates the quantityand quality of utterances of young infants. In the study,
mothers’ responsiveness to their infants’ vocalizations
was manipulated (FIG. 4d). After a baseline period of
normal interaction, half of the mothers were instructed
to respond immediately to their infants’ vocalizations
by smiling, moving closer to and touching their infants:
these were the ‘contingent condition’ (CC) mothers.
The other half of the mothers were ‘yoked controls’(YC) — their reactions were identical, but timed (bythe experimenter’s instructions) to coincide with vocalizations of infants in the CC group. Infants in the CCgroup produced more vocalizations than infants in the
YC group, and their vocalizations were more mature
and adult-like (FIG. 4e)80.
In other species, such as songbirds, communicative
learning is also enhanced by social contact. Young zebra
finches need visual interaction with a tutor bird to learn
song in the laboratory83, and their innate preference
for conspecific song can be overridden by a Bengalese
finch foster father who feeds them, even when adultzebra finch males can be heard nearby84. White crownsparrows, which reject the audiotaped songs of alien
species, learn the same alien songs when they are sungby a live tutor85. In barn owls86 and white-crowned sparrows85, a richer social environment extends the durationof the sensitive period for learning. Social contexts also
advance song production in birds; male cowbirds
respond to the social gestures and displays of females,
which affect the rate, quality and retention of song
elements in their repertoires87, and white-crowned
sparrow tutors provide acoustic feedback that affects
the repertoires of young birds88.
In birds, interactions can take various forms.
Blindfolded zebra finches that cannot see the tutor, but
can interact through pecking and grooming, learn theirsongs. Moreover, young birds that have been operantly
conditioned to present conspecific song to themselvesby pressing a key learn the songs they hear89,90, indicating that active participation, attention and motivation
are important70.
In the human infant foreign-language-learning
situation described earlier, a live person also provides
referential cues. Speakers often focused on pictures inthe books or on the toys that they were talking about,and the infant’s gaze followed the speaker’s gaze, which
is typical for infants at this age91,92. Gaze-following to
an object is an important predictor of receptive vocabulary92,93; perhaps joint visual attention to an object
that is being named also helps infants to segment
words from ongoing speech.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 3 7

REVIEWS

a Foreign-language exposure

Live exposured Social response manipulation

Auditory or audiovisual
exposureContingent condition (CC)Visit 1
Visit 2nioct )t in in
Ex 0 m(1
sent on
g e spt in r e
on l )
C c ia inso 0 m(1elin )s e inBa 0 m
(1
n
io

at
r iz
ilia )
m in
Fa 0 m(3b Phonetic perception test

Yoked-control condition (YC)
Visit 1
Visit 2
Head-turn procedure
Test stimuli: Mandarin Chinese phonetic contrast

n
io
ct )
t in in
Ex 0 m ent e
g s(1t in o n
o n sp- c reon l )
N c ia inso 0 m(1elin )s e inBa 0 m
(1
n
io

at
r iz
ilia )
m in
Fa 0 m(3c Phonetic learning

70
65
60

Mandarin
exposure
Englishcontrol

Effects of non-live
foreign-language
exposure

TV Audio

55
50

Chance45

e Effects of social responses
Proportion of syllables
to vocalizations

Percent correct

Effects of live
foreign-language
exposureContingent
socialNon-contingent
social

0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Baseline

Socialresponse

Extinction

Figure 4 | Two speech experiments on social learning. a | Nine-month-old American infants
being exposed to Mandarin Chinese in twelve 25-min live or televised sessions. b | After exposure,infants in the Mandarin exposure groups and those in the English control groups were tested on a
Mandarin phonetic contrast using the head-turn technique. c | The results show phonetic learning in
the live-exposure group, but no learning in the TV- or audio-only groups31. d | Eight-month-old
infants received either contingent or non-contingent social feedback from their mothers in responseto their vocalizations. e | Contingent social feedback increased the quantity and complexity of
infants’ vocalizations80. Panel c modified, with permission, from REF. 31 © (2003) National Academyof Sciences USA. Panels d and e modified, with permission, from REF. 80 © (2003) National
Academy of Sciences USA.

For both infants and birds, it is unclear whether social
interaction itself, or the attention and contingency thattypically accompany social interaction, are crucial forlearning. However, contingency has been shown to be an
important component in human vocalization learning81,82, and reciprocity in adult–infant language can beseen in infants’ tendency to alternate their vocalizations
with those of an adult94,95. The pervasive use of motherese (BOX 4) by adults is a social response that adjusts tothe needs of infant listeners96,97. For infants, early social
awareness is a predictor of later language skills92.
Social interaction can be conceived of as gating
computational learning, and thereby protecting infants
from meaningless calculations71. The need for social
interaction would ensure that learning focuses on
speech that derives from humans in the child’s environment, rather than on signals from other sources70,98,99.
Social interaction might also be important for learning
sign language; both deaf and hearing babies who experience a natural sign language babble using their hands on
the same schedule that hearing babies babble using their

8 3 8 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5

mouths100. Constraints are evident when infants hear orsee non-human actions: infants imitate vocalizations
rather than sine-wave analogues of speech101, and infer
and reproduce intended actions displayed by humans
but not by machines102.
Social factors might affect language acquisition
because language evolved to address a need for social
communication. There are connections between social
awareness and other higher cognitive functions103,104,and evolution might have forged connections between
language and the social brain.
The mechanism that controls the interface between
language and social cognition remains a mystery. The
effects of social environments might be broad, generaland ‘top-down’, and might engage special memory
systems105,106. People engaged in social interaction arehighly aroused and attentive — general arousal mechanisms might enhance our ability to learn and remember,
as well as prompting our most sophisticated language
output. These effects could be mediated by hormones,
which have been implicated in learning and song production in birds107,108. On the other hand, learning
might also involve more specific, ‘bottom-up’ mechanisms attuned to the particular form and information
content of social cues (such as eye gaze). Further studies
are needed to understand how the social brain supports
language learning.
Native language neural commitment

A growing number of studies have confirmed the effectsof language experience on the brain109–117. The techniques
used in these studies have recently been applied to infants
and young children30,32,61,118-121. For example, DehaeneLambertz and colleagues used functional MRI to measure
the brain activity evoked by normal speech and speech
played backwards in 3-month-old infants, and found thatsimilar brain regions are active in adults and infants when
listening to normal speech but that there are differences
between adults’ and infants’ responses to backwards
speech119. Pena and colleagues studied newborn infants’reactions to normal and backwards speech using optical
topography, and showed greater left-hemisphere reaction
when processing normal speech120.
At present, studies tell us less about why our ability toacquire languages changes over time. One hypothesis,
native language neural commitment (NLNC), makes
specific predictions that relate early linguistic experience
to future language learning122. According to NLNC,
language learning produces dedicated neural networks
that code the patterns of native-language speech. The
hypothesis focuses on the aspects of language learned
early — the statistical and prosodic regularities in language input that lead to phonetic and word learning —and how they influence the brain’s future ability to learn
language. According to the theory, neural commitment
to the statistical and prosodic regularities of one’s native
language promotes the future use of these learned patterns in higher-order native-language computations. At
the same time, NLNC interferes with the processing of
foreign-language patterns that do not conform to thosealready learned.

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWS

Box 4 | What is ‘motherese’?
a

I had alittle
bit

400

and
uhh

The
doctorgave meEnglish/i/

3,000
Bendectinfor

F2 (Hz)F0 (Hz)b

Adult-directed
700

it

100

2,000

1,000

Infant-directed

300

700

1,100

F1 (Hz)700

Russian
400

100

/i/

3,000
Can you
say ahh?

Hey you
Say
ahhh

Say
hi-i-ihi-i-iF2 (Hz)F0 (Hz)

/a/

/u/

2,000
/a/

Time

1,000
/u/

c

Infant-directed

300

700

1,100

F1 (Hz)–10

Swedish

–15

3,000

F2 (Hz)Speech-perception performance(linear transform of trials to criterion)

–5

–20
–25

2,000
/a/
1,000

–30

/i/

/u/
300

700

1,100

F1 (Hz)–35
300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

ID vowel area (Hz2)

700,000

800,000

Adult-directed
Infant-directed

When we talk to infants and children, we use a special speech ‘register’ that has a uniqueacoustic signature, called ‘motherese’. Caretakers in most cultures use it when addressing
infants and children. When compared to adult-directed speech, infant-directed speech isslower, has a higher average pitch and contains exaggerated pitch contours, as shown inthe comparison between the pitch contours contained in adult-directed (AD) versus
infant-directed (ID) speech (a)78.
Infant-directed speech might assist infants in learning speech sounds. Women speaking
English, Russian or Swedish were recorded while they spoke to another adult or to their
young infants79. Acoustic analyses showed that the vowel sounds (the /i/ in ‘see’, the /a/ in‘saw’ and the /u/ in ‘Sue’) in infant-directed speech were more clearly articulated (b).
Women from all three countries exaggerated the acoustic components of vowels (see the‘stretching’ of the formant frequencies, creating a larger triangle for infant-directed, as
opposed to adult-directed, speech). This acoustic stretching makes the vowels containedin motherese more distinct.
Infants might benefit from the exaggeration of the sounds in motherese (c). The
sizes of a mother’s vowel triangles, which reflect how clearly she speaks, are related toher infant’s skill in distinguishing the phonetic units of speech96. Mothers who
stretch the vowels to a greater degree have infants who are better able to hear thesubtle distinctions in speech. Panel a modified, with permission, from REF. 78 ©
(1987) Elsevier Science; panel b modified, with permission, from REF. 79 © (1997)
American Association for the Advancement of Science; panel c modified, withpermission, from REF. 96 © (2003) Blackwell Scientific Publishing.

Evidence for the effects of NLNC in adults comesfrom magnetoencephalography (MEG): when processing foreign-language speech sounds, a larger areaof the adult brain is activated for a longer time period
than when processing native-language sounds, indicating neural inefficiency111. This neural inefficiency
for foreign-language information extends beyond

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

speech — processing mathematical knowledge in asecond language is also difficult123. In both cases, nativelanguage strategies can interfere with information
processing in a foreign language124.
Regarding infants, the NLNC hypothesis predicts
that an infant’s early skill in native-language phonetic
perception should predict that child’s later success at
language acquisition. This is because phonetic perception promotes the detection of phonotactic patterns,
which advance word segmentation44,125,126, and, once
infants begin to associate words with objects — a taskthat challenges phonetic perception127,128 — those infants
who have better phonetic perception would be expectedto advance faster. In other words, advanced phonetic
abilities in infancy should ‘bootstrap’129 language
learning, propelling infants to more sophisticated levels
earlier in development. Behavioural studies support thishypothesis. Speech-discrimination skill in 6-month-old
infants predicted their language scores (words understood, words produced and phrases understood) at
13, 16 and 24 months130.
Neural measures provide a sensitive measure ofindividual differences in speech perception. Eventrelated potentials (ERPs) have been used in infants andtoddlers to measure neural responses to phonemes,
words and sentences30,61,121,131. Rivera-Gaxiola andcolleagues recorded ERPs in typically developing
7- and 11-month-old infants in response to native andnon-native speech sounds, and found two types ofneural responder30. One group responded to bothcontrasts with positive-going brainwave changes(‘P’ responders), whereas the second group responded
to both contrasts with negative-going brainwave
changes (‘N’ responders)(BOX 5). Both groups could
neurally discriminate the foreign-language sound at 11
months of age, whereas total group analyses had
obscured this result30.
In my laboratory, we use behavioural and ERP
measures to take NLNC one step further. If early learning
in infants causes neural commitment to native-language
patterns, then foreign-language phonetic perception in
infants who have never experienced a foreign language
should reflect the degree to which the brain remains‘open’ or uncommitted to native-language speech
patterns. The degree to which an infant remains open toforeign-language speech (in the absence of exposure
to a foreign language) should therefore signal slower
language learning. As an open system reflects uncommitted circuitry, skill at discriminating foreign-language
phonetic units should provide an indirect measure of
the brain’s degree of commitment to native-language
patterns.
Ongoing laboratory studies support this hypothesis.
In one study, 7-month-old infants from monolingual
homes were tested on both native and foreign-language
contrasts using behavioral and ERP brain measures132.
As predicted, excellent native-language speech perception,measured with behavioural or brain measures, correlated positively with later language skills, whereas
better foreign-language speech perception skills
correlated negatively with later language skills.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 3 9

REVIEWS

Box 5 | What can brain measures reveal about speech discrimination in infants?
Continuous brain activity during speech processing
Reponses to foreign contrast at
11 months of age
can be monitored in infants by recording the electrical
11-m P responders
activity of groups of neurons using electrodes placed
Foreignon the scalp. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are small
deviant
5 µV
voltage fluctuations that result from evoked neuralFz
activity. ERPs reflect, with high temporal resolution,
the patterns of neuronal activity evoked by a stimulus.
It is a non-invasive procedure that can be applied toStandard
infants with no risks. During the procedure, infants
11-m N responders
listen to a series of sounds: one is repeated many times
Foreign phonetic test:
Standard'ta-ta-ta-DA' (Spanish)(the standard) and a second one (the deviant) is
5 µV
presented on 15% of the trials. Responses are recorded
English listeners hear theFz
Spanish syllable 'ta' as 'da'to each stimulus.
Using a longitudinal design, Rivera-Gaxiola andNative contrast:
Foreign
100 ms'da-da-da-THA' (English)
colleagues30 recorded the electrophysiologicaldeviant
responses of 7- and 11-month-old American infants tonative and non-native consonant contrasts. As a group, infants’ discriminatory ERP responses to the non-native contrast
are present at 7 months of age, but disappear by 11 months of age, consistent with behavioural data.
However, when the same infants were divided into subgroups on the basis of individual ERP components, there wasevidence that the infant brain remains sensitive to the non-native contrast at 11 months of age, showing discriminatory
positivities at 150–250 ms (P responders) or discriminatory negativities at 250–550 ms (N responders). Infants in bothsub-groups increased their responsiveness to the native-language consonant contrast by 11 months of age.

These results indicate that infants who remain open
to all linguistic possibilities — retaining the innate
state in which all phonetic differences are partitioned— do not progress as quickly towards language. To
learn language, the innate state must be altered by
input and give way to NLNC.
Neural commitment could be important in a ‘critical
period’ or ‘sensitive period’133 for language acquisition134. Maturational factors are a powerful predictorof the acquisition of first and second languages135–140.
For example, deaf children born to hearing parents
whose first exposure to sign language occurs after theage of 6 show a life-long attenuation in ability to learn
language141. Why is age so crucial? According to NLNC,
exposure to spoken or signed language instigatesa mapping process for which infants are neurally
prepared142, and during which the brain’s networks
commit themselves to the basic statistical and prosodic
features of the native language. These patterns allow
phonetic and word learning. Infants who excel at
detecting the patterns in natural language move more
quickly towards complex language structures. Simply
experiencing a language early in development, without
producing it themselves, can have lasting effects on
infants’ ability to learn that language as an adult105,143,144(but see REF. 145). By contrast, when language input issubstantially delayed, native-like skills are neverachieved141.
If experience is an important driver of the sensitive
period, as NLNC indicates, why do we not learn new
languages as easily at 50 as at 5? What mechanism orprocess governs the decline in sensitivity with age? A statistical process could govern the eventual closing of thesensitive period. If infants represent the distribution of aparticular vowel in language input, and are sensitive tothe degree of variability in that distribution, the closing

8 4 0 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5of the sensitive period would be cued by the stability of
infants’ phonetic distributions. In early childhood, caretakers’ pronunciations would be overly represented in achild’s distribution of vowels. As experience with more
speakers occurred, the distribution would change toreflect further variability. With continued experience,the distribution would begin to stabilize. Given the variability in speech (BOX 2), this might require substantial
listening experience. According to the hypothesis, whenthe ‘ah’ vowels of new speakers no longer cause a change
in the underlying distribution, the sensitive period forphonetic learning would begin to close, and learning
would decline. There are probably several sensitive periods for various aspects of language, but similar principles
could apply.
In bilingual children, who hear two languages with
distinct statistical and prosodic properties, NLNC
predicts that the stabilization process would take longer,
and studies are under way to test this hypothesis.
Bilingual children are mapping two distinct systems,with some portion of the input they hear devoted
to each language. At an early age neither language isstatistically stable, and neither is therefore likely to interfere with the other, so young children can acquire two
languages easily.
NLNC provides a mechanism that contributes toour understanding of the sensitive period. It does notdeny the existence of a sensitive period; rather, it
explains the fact that second language learning abilities
decline precipitously as language acquisition proceeds.
NLNC might also explain why the degree of difficultyin learning a second language varies depending on therelationship between the first and second language146;
according to NLNC, it should depend on the overlap
between the statistical and prosodic features of the two
languages.

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWS

Computation with constraints

In the first year of life, infants show avid learning of theinformation in language input. Infants learn implicitly
when they hear complex, everyday language spoken in
their homes, as well as in laboratories. By the age of 6months, infants’ experiences with the distributional patterns in ambient language have altered their perceptionof the phonetic units of speech. At 8 months, the sensitivity of infants to the statistical cues in speech allows
them to segment words. At 9 months, infants can learn
from exposure to a foreign language in natural infantdirected conversations, but not if the information ispresented through a television or audiotape. Infants’successes in these experiments support specific hypotheses about mechanisms that explain how infant learning
occurs. They represent substantial advances in our
understanding of language acquisition.
At the same time, the data indicate that there areperceptual, computational, social and neural constraints. Infants do not distinguish all possible physicaldifferences in speech sounds — only those that underlie phonetic distinctions3–6. In word learning, infants
compute transitional probabilities that assist them in
identifying potential words, but computational constraints are also shown46,60,63,147,148. Moreover, whenlearning natural language, constraints are seen in thepotential need for a social, interactive human being31,80.
Finally, learning produces a neural commitment to thepatterns of an individual’s native language, and thisconstrains future success at acquiring a new language.
The origins of these constraints on infants’ acquisition of language are of interest to theorists. Tests on
non-human species and in domains outside the field of
language have led to the view that aspects of language

1.

Ladefoged, P. Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to
the Sounds of Language 2nd edn (Blackwell, Oxford, UK,2004).
2. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P. &Studdert-Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code.
Psychol. Rev. 74, 431–461 (1967).
3. Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P. & Vigorito, J.
Speech perception in infants. Science 171, 303–306 (1971).
4. Lasky, R. E., Syrdal-Lasky, A. & Klein, R. E. VOT
discrimination by four to six and a half month old infants
from Spanish environments. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 20,
215–225 (1975).
5. Eimas, P. D. Auditory and phonetic coding of the cues forspeech: discrimination of the /r-l/ distinction by young
infants. Percept. Psychophys. 18, 341–347 (1975).
6. Werker, J. F. & Lalonde, C. Cross-language speech
perception: initial capabilites and developmental change.
Dev. Psychol. 24, 672–683 (1988).
7. Miyawaki, K. et al. An effect of linguistic experience: thediscrimination of /r/ and /l/ by native speakers of Japaneseand English. Percept. Psychophys. 18, 331–340 (1975).
8. Stevens, K. N. Acoustic Phonetics (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2000).
9. Kuhl, P. K. & Miller, J. D. Speech perception by the chinchilla:
voice–voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants.
Science 90, 69–72 (1975).
10. Kuhl, P. K. & Miller, J. D. Speech perception by the chinchilla:
identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 63, 905–917 (1978).
11. Kuhl, P. K. & Padden, D. M. Enhanced discriminability at thephonetic boundaries for the place feature in macaques.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 1003–1010 (1983).
12. Pisoni, D. B. Identification and discrimination of the relative
onset time of two component tones: implications for voicing
perception in stops. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61, 1352–1361(1977).

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

might have evolved to match a set of domain-generalperceptual and learning abilities14,15,62,63,122,148,149. Further
research will continue to explore which aspects ofinfants’ language-processing skills are unique to humans
and which reflect domain-general as opposed tolanguage-specific skills. Current research highlights thepossibility that language evolved to meet the needs ofyoung human beings, and in meeting their perceptual,computational, social and neural abilities, produced a
species-specific communication system that can beacquired by all typically developing humans.
Concluding remarks

Substantial progress has been made in understanding
the initial phases of language acquisition. At all levels,
language learning is constrained — perceptual, computational, social and neural constraints affect what can belearned, and when. Learning results in native languageneural commitment (NLNC). According to this model,
computers and animals, while capable of some of theskills demanded by language, do not duplicate the setof human perceptual, computational, social and neuralconstraints that languages exploit. Language wasdesigned to enable people to communicate using a codethat they would learn once and hold onto for a lifetime.
The rules by which infants perceive information, the ways
in which they learn words, the social contexts in which
language is communicated and the need to remember
the learned entities for a long time probably influenced
the evolution of language. Identifying constraints on
infant learning, from all sources, and determining
whether those constraints reflect innate knowledge that is
specific to language, or are more domain-general, will bea continuing focus in the next decade.

13. Jusczyk, A. M., Pisoni, D. B., Walley, A. & Murray, J.
Discrimination of relative onset time of two-component
tones by infants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 262–270(1980).
14. Kuhl, P. K. Theoretical contributions of tests on animals tothe special-mechanisms debate in speech. Exp. Biol. 45,
233–265 (1986).
15. Kuhl, P. K. in Plasticity of Development (eds Brauth, S. E.,
Hall, W. S. & Dooling, R. J.) 73–106 (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1991).
16. Aslin, R. N. & Pisoni, D. B. in Child Phonology: Perception
and Production (eds Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J. &Ferguson, C.) 67–96 (Academic, New York, 1980).
17. Burnham, D. Developmental loss of speech perception:
exposure to and experience with a first language. Appl.
Psycholinguist. 7, 207–240 (1986).
18. Kuhl, P. K. in Neonate Cognition: Beyond the Blooming
Buzzing Confusion (eds Mehler, J. & Fox, R.) 231–262(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey,1985).
19. Hillenbrand, J. Speech perception by infants: categorization
based on nasal consonant place of articulation. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 75, 1613–1622 (1984).
20. Kuhl, P. K. Speech perception in early infancy: perceptual
constancy for spectrally dissimilar vowel categories.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 1668–1679 (1979).
21. Kuhl, P. K. Perception of auditory equivalence classes forspeech in early infancy. Infant Behav. Dev. 6, 263–285(1983).
22. Miller, J. L. & Liberman, A. M. Some effects of later-occurring
information on the perception of stop consonant andsemivowel. Percept. Psychophys. 25, 457–465 (1979).
23. Eimas, P. D. & Miller, J. L. Contextual effects in infant speech
perception. Science 209, 1140–1141 (1980).
24. Zue, V. & Glass, J. Conversational interfaces: advances andchallenges. Proc. IEEE 88, 1166–1180 (2000).

25. Kuhl, P. K. & Meltzoff, A. Infant vocalizations in response to
speech: vocal imitation and developmental change.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 2425–2438 (1996).
Vocalizations of infants watching a video of a female
talker were recorded at 12, 16 and 20 weeks of age.
The results show developmental change between 12
and 20 weeks of age and also provide evidence of
vocal imitation in infants by 20 weeks of age.
26. Werker, J. F. & Tees, R. C. Cross-language speech
perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during
the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7, 49–63 (1984).
27. Best, C. & McRoberts, G. W. Infant perception of non-native
consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways.
Lang. Speech 46, 183–216 (2003).
28. Tsushima, T. et al. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Spoken Language Processing Vol. S28F-1,
1695–1698 (Yokohama, Japan, 1994).
29. Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M., Zhang, Y. & de Boer, B. in
The Convergence of Natural and Human Science (eds
Domasio, A. et al.) 136–174 (The New York Academy of
Science, New York, 2001).
30. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J. & Kuhl, P. K. Brain
potentials to native- and non-native speech contrasts inseven and eleven-month-old American infants. Dev. Sci.
(in the press).
An ERP study showing that at 11 months, the infant
brain remains sensitive to non-native-language
contrasts. Infants’ responsiveness to native-language
consonant contrasts also increased over time.
31. Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M. & Liu, H.-M. Foreign-language
experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure andsocial interaction on phonetic learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 100, 9096–9101 (2003).
Two studies showing that learning can occur with only
short-term exposure to a language in infants, and that
it is enhanced by social interaction.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 4 1

REVIEWS
32. Cheour, M. et al. Development of language-specificphoneme representations in the infant brain. Nature
Neurosci. 1, 351–353 (1998).
33. Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M., Zhang, Y. & De Boer, B.
Language/culture/mind/brain. Progress at the margins
between disciplines. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 935, 136–174 (2001).
34. Fant, G. Speech Sounds and Features (MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973).
35. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L., Clark, M. & Wheeler, K. Acoustic
characteristics of American English vowels. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 97, 3099–3111 (1995).
36. Perkell, J. & Klatt, D. Invariance and Variability in Speech
Processes 1–604 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
New Jersey, 1986).
37. Lacerda, F. The perceptual magnet effect: an emergent
consequence of exemplar-based phonetic memory. Proc.
Int. Congr. Phonetic Sci. 2, 140–147 (1995).
38. Lisker, L. & Abramson, A. S. A cross-language study of
voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20,
384–422 (1964).
39. Kuhl, P. K. Early linguistic experience and phonetic
perception: implications for theories of developmental
speech perception. J. Phonetics 21, 125–139 (1993).
40. Maye, J., Werker, J. F. & Gerken, L. Infant sensitivity to
distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination.
Cognition 82, B101–B111 (2002).
41. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N. &Lindblom, B. Linguistic experience alters phonetic
perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255,
606–608 (1992).
42. Kuhl, P. K. Human adults and human infants show a‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech
categories, monkeys do not. Percept. Psychophys. 50,
93–107 (1991).
43. Rosch, E. Cognitive reference points. Cognit. Psychol. 7,
532–547 (1975).
44. Jusczyk, P., Luce, P. & Charles-Luce, J. Infants’ sensitivity tophonotactic patterns in the native language. J. Mem. Lang.
33, 630–645 (1994).
This study found that 9-month-old infants, but not 6month-old infants, prefer frequently occurring
phonetic patterns in monosyllables.
45. Fenson, L. et al. MacArthur Communicative Development
Inventories: User’s Guide and Technical Manual (Singular
Publishing Group, San Diego, California, 1993).
46. Saffran, J. R. Constraints on statistical language learning.
J. Mem. Lang. 47, 172–196 (2002).
This study shows that learners can use the predictive
relationships that link elements within phrases toacquire phrase structure. Predictive relationships
improved learning for sequentially presented auditory
stimuli, and for simultaneously presented visual stimuli,
but not for sequentially presented visual stimuli.
47. Goodsitt, J. V., Morgan, J. L. & Kuhl, P. K. Perceptual
strategies in prelingual speech segmentation. J. Child Lang.
20, 229–252 (1993).
48. Karzon, R. Discrimination of polysyllabic sequences by
one- to four-month-old infants. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 39,
326–342 (1985).
49. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. Statisticallearning by 8-month old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928(1996).
50. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R. & Newport, E. L. Computation of
conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants.
Psychol. Sci. 9, 321–324 (1998).
51. Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L.
Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants andadults. Cognition 70, 27–52 (1999).
52. Fiser, J. & Aslin, R. N. Statistical learning of new visualfeature combinations by infants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
99, 15822–15826 (2002).
53. Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A. & Johnson, S. P. Visual
statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain
general learning mechanism. Cognition 83, B35–B42(2002).
This study provides evidence that infants’ statisticallearning from auditory input can be generalized to thevisual domain.
54. Hauser, M. D., Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. Segmentation of
the speech stream in a non-human primate: statisticallearning in cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 78, B53–B64(2001).
55. Cutler, A. & Carter, D. The predominance of strong initialsyllables in the English vocabulary. Comput. Speech Lang.
2, 133–142 (1987).
56. Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M. & Newsome, M. The
beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants.
Cognit. Psychol. 39, 159–207 (1999).
57. Johnson, E. K. & Jusczyk, P. W. Word segmentation by
8-month-olds: when speech cues count more thanstatistics. J. Mem. Lang. 44, 548–567 (2001).

8 4 2 | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 5

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.
70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.
76.

77.
78.

79.
80.

81.
82.

83.

The authors showed that, when multiple cues areavailable, 8-month-olds weighed prosodic cues moreheavily than statistical cues.
Saffran, J. R. & Thiessen, E. D. Pattern induction by infant
language learners. Dev. Psychol. 39, 484–494 (2003).
A study of how infants segment words according tostress patterns. Nine-month-old infants learned tosegment speech using the iambic pattern whether the
exposure consisted of 100% or 80% iambic words.
Seven-month-olds could alter their segmentation
strategies when the distribution of stress cues inwords was altered.
Thiessen, E. D. & Saffran, J. R. Learning to learn: infants’acquisition of stress–based strategies for word
segmentation. J. Mem. Lang. (under revision).
Santelmann, L. M. & Jusczyk, P. W. Sensitivity to
discontinuous dependencies in language learners: evidence
for limitations in processing space. Cognition 69, 105–134(1998).
Silva-Pereyra, J., Rivera-Gaxiola, M. & Kuhl, P. K. An eventrelated brain potential study of sentence comprehension inpreschoolers: semantic and morphosyntatic processing.
Cognit. Brain Res. (in the press).
Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. Learning at a distance I.
Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognit.
Psychol. 48, 127–162 (2004).
Newport, E. L., Hauser, M. D., Spaepen, G. & Aslin, R. N.
Learning at a distance II. Statistical learning of non-adjacentdependencies in a non-human primate. Cognit. Psychol. 49,
85–117 (2004).
Gomez, R. L. & Gerken, L. Artificial grammar learning by
1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge.
Cognition 70, 109–135 (1999).
Gomez, R. L. & Gerken, L. Infant artificial language learningand language acquisition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 178–186(2000).
Pena, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M. & Mehler, J. Signaldriven computations in speech processing. Science 298,
604–607 (2002).
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S. & Vishton, P. M.
Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283,
77–80 (1999).
Seidenberg, M. S., MacDonald, M. C. & Saffran, J. R. Does
grammar start where statistics stop? Science 298, 553–554(2002).
Seidenberg, M. S. & Elman, J. Do infants learn grammar
with algebra or statistics? Science 284, 433 (1999).
Doupe, A. J. & Kuhl, P. K. Birdsong and human speech:
common themes and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
22, 567–631 (1999).
Kuhl, P. K. Human speech and birdsong: communicationand the social brain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100,
9645–9646 (2003).
Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D. & Rigler, M.
The development of language in Genie: a case of language
acquisition beyond the ‘critical period’. Brain Lang. 1,
81–107 (1974).
Kuhl, P. K., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D. M. & Dawson, G.
Links between social and linguistic processing of speech inpreschool children with autism: behavioral andelectrophysiological measures. Dev. Sci. 7, 19–30 (2004).
Vouloumanos, A. & Werker, J. F. Tuned to the signal: theprivileged status of speech for young infants. Dev. Sci. 7,
270–276 (2004).
The authors investigated differences in 2- to 7-month
old infants’ perception of nonsense speech sounds
and structurally similar non-speech analogues. They
found a bias for speech sounds in infants as young as
2-months old.
Bruner, I. Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language(W. W. Norton, New York, 1983).
Vigotsky, L. S. Thought and Language: A Usage-Based
Theory of Language Acquisition (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1962).
Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language (Harvard Univ.
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2003).
Fernald, A. & Kuhl, P. Acoustic determinants of infant
preference for motherese speech. Infant Behav. Dev. 10,
279–293 (1987).
Kuhl, P. K. et al. Cross-language analysis of phonetic units inlanguage addressed to infants. Science 277, 684–686 (1997).
Goldstein, M., King, A. & West, M. Social interaction shapes
babbling: testing parallels between birdsong and speech.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8030–8035 (2003).
Bloom, K. Social elicitation of infant vocal behavior. J. Exp.
Child Psychol. 20, 51–58 (1975).
Bloom, K. & Esposito, A. Social conditioning and its proper
control procedures. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 19, 209–222(1975).
Eales, L. The influences of visual and vocal interaction on songlearning in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 37, 507–508 (1989).

84. Immelmann, K. in Bird Vocalizations (ed. Hinde, R.) 61–74(Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1969).
85. Baptista, L. F. & Petrinovich, L. Song development in thewhite-crowned sparrow: social factors and sex differences.
Anim. Behav. 34, 1359–1371 (1986).
86. Brainard, M. S. & Knudsen, E. I. Sensitive periods for visualcalibration of the auditory space map in the barn owl optic
tectum. J. Neurosci. 18, 3929–3942 (1998).
87. West, M. & King, A. Female visual displays affect thedevelopment of male song in the cowbird. Nature 334,
244–246 (1988).
88. Nelson, D. & Marler, P. Selection-based learning in bird songdevelopment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 10498–10501(1994).
89. Adret, P. Operant conditioning, song learning and imprinting
to taped song in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 46, 149–159(1993).
90. Tchernichovski, O., Mitra, P., Lints, T. & Nottebohm, F.
Dynamics of the vocal imitation process: how a zebra finch
learns its song. Science 291, 2564–2569 (2001).
91. Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A. N. The importance of eyes: how
infants interpret adult looking behavior. Dev. Psychol. 38,
958–966 (2002).
92. Baldwin, D. A. in Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in
Development (eds Moore, C. & Dunham, P. J.) 131–158(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey,1995).
93. Mundy, P. & Gomes, A. Individual differences in joint
attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behav.
Dev. 21, 469–482 (1998).
94. Kuhl, P. K. & Meltzoff, A. N. The bimodal perception of
speech in infancy. Science 218, 1138–1141 (1982).
95. Bloom, K., Russell, A. & Wassenberg, K. Turn taking affects
the quality of infant vocalizations. J. Child Lang. 14,
211–227 (1987).
96. Liu, H.-M., Kuhl, P. K. & Tsao, F.-M. An association between
mothers’ speech clarity and infants’ speech discrimination
skills. Dev. Sci. 6, F1–F10 (2003).
97. Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. & Saffran, J. R. Infant-directedspeech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy (in thepress).
98. Marler, P. in The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology andCognition (eds Carey, S. & Gelman, R.) 37–66 (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1991).
99. Evans, C. S. & Marler, P. in Comparative Approaches to
Cognitive Science: Complex Adaptive Systems (eds
Roitblat, H. L. & Meyer, J.-A.) 341–382 (MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995).
100. Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L. E., Levy, B. & Ostry, D. J.
Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: hearing
babies acquiring sign language babble silently on the hands.
Cognition 93, 43–73 (2004).
This study showed that hearing babies acquire sign
language ‘babble’ with their hands in a way thatdiffers from hearing babies acquiring spoken
language.
101. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A. & Meltzoff, A. N. Cross-modal
speech perception in adults and infants using nonspeech
auditory stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
17, 829–840 (1991).
102. Meltzoff, A. N. Understanding the intentions of others:
re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children.
Dev. Psychol. 31, 838–850 (1995).
103. Adolphs, R. Cognitive neuroscience of human social
behaviour. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 4, 165–178 (2003).
104. Dunbar, R. I. M. The social brain hypothesis. Evol. Anthropol.
6, 178–190 (1998).
105. Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., Oh, J. S. & Au, T. K.-F. Production
benefits of childhood overhearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114,
465–474 (2003).
106. Funabiki, Y. & Konishi, M. Long memory in song learning by
zebra finches. J. Neurosci. 23, 6928–6935 (2003).
107. Wilbrecht, L. & Nottebohm, F. Vocal learning in birds andhumans. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 9, 135–148(2003).
108. Nottebohm, F. The road we travelled: discovery,
choreography, and significance of brain replaceable
neurons. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1016, 628–658 (2004).
109. Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dupoux, E. & Gout, A.
Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing:a cross-linguistic study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 635–647(2000).
110. Callan, D. E., Jones, J. A., Callan, A. M. & Akahane-Yamada, R.
Phonetic perceptual identification by native- and secondlanguage speakers differentially activates brain regions
involved with acoustic phonetic processing and those
involved with articulatory-auditory/orosensory internal
models. Neuroimage 22, 1182–1194 (2004).
111. Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T. & Kotani, M. Effects of language
experience: where, when & how. Cognitive Neuroscience
Society Annual General Meeting program 2003, 81-82.

www.nature.com/reviews/neuro

REVIEWS

112. Sanders, L. D., Newport, E. L. & Neville, H. J. Segmenting
nonsense: an event-related potential index of perceived
onsets in continuous speech. Nature Neurosci. 5, 700–703(2002).
113. Golestani, N. & Zatorre, R. J. Learning new sounds ofspeech: reallocation of neural substrates. Neuroimage 21,494–506 (2004).
114. Wang, Y., Sereno, J. A., Jongman, A. & Hirsch, J. fMRI
evidence for cortical modification during learning of
Mandarin lexical tone. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 1019–1027(2003).
115. Winkler, I. et al. Brain responses reveal the learning of foreign
language phonemes. Psychophysiology 36, 638–642(1999).
116. Koyama, S. et al. Cortical evidence of the perceptual
backward masking effect on /l/ and /r/ sounds from afollowing vowel in Japanese speakers. Neuroimage 18,
962–974 (2003).
117. Temple, E. et al. Neural deficits in children with dyslexia
ameliorated by behavioral remediation: evidence fromfunctional MRI. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2860–2865(2003).
This fMRI study of children with dyslexia showed that
an auditory processing and oral language remediation
programme produced increased brain activity in areasthat are usually activated in children who have no
difficulty in reading.
118. Cheour, M. et al. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is
feasible for infant assessment of auditory discrimination.
Exp. Neurol. (in the press).
119. Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S. & Hertz-Pannier, L.
Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in infants.
Science 298, 2013–2015 (2002).
The authors used fMRI to show that, like adults,
language activates areas in the left hemisphere, withadditional activation in the preforntal cortex of awake
infants.
120. Pena, M. et al. Sounds and silence: an optical topography
study of language recognition at birth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 100, 11702–11705 (2003).
121. Mills, D. L., Coffey-Corina, S. & Neville, H. J. Language
comprehension and cerebral specialization from 13–20
months. Dev. Neuropsychol. 13, 397–445 (1997).
122. Kuhl, P. K. A new view of language acquisition. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11850–11857 (2000).
123. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R. & Tsivkin, S.
Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral andbrain-imaging evidence. Science 284, 970–974 (1999).
124. Iverson, P. et al. A perceptual interference account ofacquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition
87, B47–B57 (2003).
125. Friederici, A. D. & Wessels, J. M. I. Phonotactic knowledgeof word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception.
Percept. Psychophys. 54, 287–295 (1993).

NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE

126. Mattys, S., Jusczyk, P., Luce, P. & Morgan, J. L. Phonotactic
and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants.
Cognit. Psychol. 38, 465–494 (1999).
127. Werker, J. F., Fennell, C., Corcoran, K. & Stager, C. Infants’ability to learn phonetically similar words: effects of age andvocabulary size. Infancy 3, 1–30 (2002).
This study showed that 14-month-old infants could
not learn to pair phonetically similar words withdifferent objects, whereas 20-month-old infants
could. Vocabulary size was a predictive factor in theyounger infants.
128. Stager, C. & Werker, J. F. Infants listen for more phonetic
detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks.
Nature 388, 381–382 (1997).
129. Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K. Signal to Syntax: Bootstrappingfrom Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1996).
130. Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M. & Kuhl, P. K. Speech perception in
infancy predicts language development in the second yearof life: a longitudinal study. Child Dev. 75, 1067–1084 (2004).
131. Pang, E. et al. Mismatch negativity to speech stimuli in
8-month-old infants and adults. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 29,
227–236 (1998).
132. Kuhl, P. K., Nelson, T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D. M. &Conboy, B. Early brain and behavioral measures of nativeand non-native speech perception differentially predict later
language development: the neural commitment hypothesis.
Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 15935 (2004).
133. Knudsen, E. I. in Fundamental Neuroscience (ed.
Zigmond, M. J.) 637–654 (Academic, San Diego, 1999).
134. Lenneberg, E. H. Biological Foundations of Language (Wiley,
New York, 1967).
135. Newport, E. Maturational constraints on language learning.
Cognit. Sci. 14, 11–28 (1990).
136. Johnson, J. & Newport, E. Critical period effects in soundlanguage learning: the influence of maturation state on theacquisition of English as a second language. Cognit.
Psychol. 21, 60–99 (1989).
137. Piske, T., MacKay, I. & Flege, J. Factors affecting degree of
foreign accent in an L2: a review. J. Phonetics 29, 191–215(2001).
138. Long, M. Maturational constraints on language development.
Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 12, 251–285 (1990).
139. Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. On the evidence for maturational
constraints in second-language acquisition. J. Mem. Lang.
44, 235–249 (2001).
140. Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H. & Liu, S. Age constraints
on second-language acquisition. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 78–104(1999).
A study of second language learning in Korean speakers
who arrived in the United States at different ages. Age ofarrival in the United States predicted the strength ofperceived foreign accent, but grammaticality scores
were more related to education and use of English.

141. Mayberry, R. I. & Lock, E. Age constraints on first versus
second language acquisition: evidence for linguistic plasticity
and epigenesis. Brain Lang. 87, 369–84 (2003).
142. Greenough, W. T. & Black, J. E. in The Minnesota Symposia
on Child Psychology, Vol. 24: Developmental Behavioral
Neuroscience (eds Gunnar, M. & Nelson, C.) 155–200(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey,1992).
143. Oh, J. S., Jun, S.-A., Knightly, L. M. & Au, T. K.-F. Holding on
to childhood language memory. Cognition 86, B53–B64(2003).
144. Au, T. K.-F., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A. & Oh, J. S.
Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychol. Sci. 13,
238–243 (2002).
This study showed that adults speak a second
language with a more native-like accent if they
overheard the language regularly during childhood.
145. Pallier, C. et al. Brain imaging of language plasticity inadopted adults: can a second language replace the first?
Cereb. Cortex 13, 155–161 (2003).
146. Flege, J., Bohn, O. & Jang, S. Effects of experience on
non-native speakers’ production and perception of English
vowels. J. Phonetics 25, 437–470 (1997).
147. Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. & Newport, E. L. Structural packaging
in the input to language learning: contributions of intonationaland morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of
language. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 498–550 (1987).
148. Saffran, J. R. Statistical language learning: mechanisms
and constraints. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 110–114(2003).
149. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. The faculty oflanguage: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?
Science 298, 1569–1579 (2002).

Acknowledgements
The author is supported by grants from the National institutes of
Health, the Santa Fe Institute, the National Science Foundation(Science of Learning Center), and the William P. and Ruth
Gerberding University Professorship Fund. The author thanks D.
Padden, J. Pruitt, L. Yamamoto and T. Knight for assistance inpreparing the manuscript, and A. Meltzoff and G. Cardillo for helpfulcomments on earlier drafts.

Competing interests statement
The author declares no competing financial interests.

Online links
FURTHER INFORMATION
Encyclopedia of Life Sciences: http://www.els.net/
Language
Kuhl’s homepage: http://ilabs.washington.edu/kuhl/
Access to this interactive links box is free online.

VOLUME 5 | NOVEMBER 2004 | 8 4 3