Rapid word learning in 13- and 17-month-olds in a naturalistic two-word procedure: looking versus reaching measures

This study investigated infants’ rapid learning of two novel words using a preferential looking measure compared with a preferential reaching measure. In Experiment 1, 21 13-month-olds and 20 17-month-olds were given 12 novel label exposures (6 per trial) for each of two novel objects. Next, in the label comprehension tests, infants were shown both objects and were asked, “Where’s the [label]?” (looking preference) and then told, “Put the [label] in the basket” (reaching preference). Only the 13-month-olds showed rapid word learning on the looking measure; neither age group showed rapid word learning on the reaching measure. In Experiment 2, the procedure was repeated 24 h later with 10 participants per age group from Experiment 1. After a further 12 labels per object, both age groups now showed robust evidence of rapid word learning, but again only on the looking measure. This is the earliest looking-based evidence of rapid word learning in infants in a well-controlled (i.e., two-word) procedure; our failure to replicate previous reports of rapid word learning in 13-month-olds with a preferential reaching measure may be due to our use of more rigorous controls for object preferences. The superior performance of the younger infants on the looking measure in Experiment 1 was not straightforwardly predicted by existing theoretical accounts of word learning.     

Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports word-learning in children and adults

Many authors have argued that word-learning constraints help guide a word-learner's hypotheses as to the meaning of a newly heard word. One such class of constraints derives from the observation that word-learners of all ages prefer to map novel labels to novel objects in situations of referential ambiguity. In this paper I use eye-tracking to document the mental computations that support this word-learning strategy. Adults and preschoolers saw images of known and novel objects, and were asked to find the referent of known and novel labels. Experiment 1 shows that adults systematically reject a known distractor (e.g. brush) before mapping a novel label (e.g. "dax") to a novel object. This is consistent with the proposal that participants worked through a Disjunctive Syllogism (i.e. Process-of-Elimination) to motivate the mapping of the novel label to the novel object. Experiment 2 shows that processing is similar for adults performing an implicit Disjunctive Syllogism (e.g. "the winner is the dax") and an explicit Disjunctive Syllogism (e.g. "the winner is not the iron"). Experiment 3 reveals that similar processes govern preschoolers' mapping of novel labels. Taken together, these results suggest that word-learners use Disjunctive Syllogism to motivate the mapping of novel labels to novel objects.     

Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants' categorization of support spatial relations

Two experiments explored the effect of linguistic input on 18-month-olds' ability to form an abstract categorical representation of support. Infants were habituated to 4 support events (i.e., one object placed on another) and were tested with a novel support and a novel containment event. Infants formed an abstract category of support (i.e., looked significantly longer at the novel than familiar relation) when hearing the word "on" during habituation but not when viewing the events in silence (Experiment 1) or when hearing general phrases or a novel word (Experiment 2). Results indicate that a familiar word can facilitate infants' formation of an abstract spatial category, leading them to form a category that they do not form in the absence of the word.     

Novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to novel objects

What is the source of the mutual exclusivity bias whereby infants map novel labels onto novel objects? In an intermodal preferential looking task, we found that novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to a novel object over a familiar object. In contrast, familiar labels and a neutral phrase gradually reduced attention to a novel object. Markman (1989, 1990) argued that infants must recall the name of a familiar object to exclude it as the referent of a novel label. We argue that 10-month-olds’ attention is guided by the novelty of objects and labels rather than knowledge of the names for familiar objects. Mutual exclusivity, as a language-specific bias, might emerge from a more general constraint on attention and learning.     

Nine-month-olds’ shared visual attention as a function of gesture and object location

Two factors hypothesized to affect shared visual attention in 9-month-olds were investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we examined the effects of different attention-directing actions (looking, looking and pointing, and looking, pointing and verbalizing) on 9-month-olds’ engagement in shared visual attention. In Experiment 1 we also varied target object locations (i.e., in front, behind, or peripheral to the infant) to test whether 9-month-olds can follow an adult’s gesture past a nearby object to a more distal target. Infants followed more elaborate parental gestures to targets within their visual field. They also ignored nearby objects to follow adults’ attention to a peripheral target, but not to targets behind them. In Experiment 2, we rotated the parent 90° from the infant’s midline to equate the size of the parents’ head turns to targets within as well as outside the infants’ visual field. This manipulation significantly increased infants’ looking to target objects behind them, however, the frequency of such looks did not exceed chance. The results of these two experiments are consistent with perceptual and social experience accounts of shared visual attention.     

Get by With a Little Help From a Word: Multimodal Input Facilitates 26-Month-Olds' Ability to Map and Generalize Arbitrary Gestural Labels

In the early stages of word learning, children demonstrate considerable flexibility in the type of symbols they will accept as object labels. However, around the 2nd year, as children continue to gain language experience, they become focused on more conventional symbols (e.g., words) as opposed to less conventional symbols (e.g., gestures). During this period of symbolic narrowing, the degree to which children are able to learn other types of labels, such as arbitrary gestures, remains a topic of debate. Thus, the purpose of the current set of experiments was to determine whether a multimodal label (word + gesture) could facilitate 26-month-olds' ability to learn an arbitrary gestural label. We hypothesized that the multimodal label would exploit children's focus on words thereby increasing their willingness to interpret the gestural label. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, 26-month-olds were trained with a multimodal label (word + gesture) and tested on their ability to map and generalize both the arbitrary gesture and the multimodal label to familiar and novel objects. In Experiment 2, 26-month-olds were trained and tested with only the gestural label. The findings revealed that 26-month-olds are able to map and generalize an arbitrary gesture when it is presented multimodally with a word, but not when it is presented in isolation. Furthermore, children's ability to learn the gestural labels was positively related to their reported productive vocabulary, providing additional evidence that children's focus on words actually helped, not hindered, their gesture learning.     

Eye tracking provides no evidence that young infants understand path obstruction

In two experiments with 47 4-month-olds, we investigated attention to key aspects of events in which an object moved along a partly occluded path that contained an obstruction. Infants were familiarized with a ball rolling behind an occluder to be revealed resting on an end wall, and on test trials an obstruction wall was placed in the ball's path. In Experiment 1, we did not find longer looking when the object appeared in an impossible location beyond the obstruction, and infants did not selectively fixate the object in this location. In Experiment 2, after rolling one or two balls, we measured infants' fixations of a two-object outcome with one ball in a novel but possible resting position and the other in a familiar but impossible location beyond the obstruction. Infants looked longer at the ball in the possible but novel location, likely reflecting a looking preference for location novelty. Thus we obtained no evidence that infants reasoned about obstruction and identified a violation on that basis.     

The role of novelty in early word learning

What mechanism implements the mutual exclusivity bias to map novel labels to objects without names? Prominent theoretical accounts of mutual exclusivity (e.g., Markman, 1989, 1990 ) propose that infants are guided by their knowledge of object names. However, the mutual exclusivity constraint could be implemented via monitoring of object novelty (see Merriman, Marazita, & Jarvis, 1995 ). We sought to discriminate between these contrasting explanations across two preferential looking experiments with 22‐month‐olds. In Experiment 1, infants viewed three objects: one name‐known, two name‐unknown. Of the two name‐unknown objects, one was novel, and the other had been previously familiarized. The infants responded to hearing a novel label by increasing attention only to the novel, name‐unknown object. In a second experiment in which the name‐known object was absent, a novel label increased infants’ attention to a novel object beyond baseline preference for novelty. The experiments provide clear evidence for a novelty‐based mechanism. However, differences in the time course of disambiguation across experiments suggest that novelty processing may be influenced by contextual factors.     

Examining the role of social cues in early word learning

Infants watched a video of an adult pointing towards two different objects while hearing novel labels. Analyses indicated that 14- and 18-month-olds looked longer at the target object, but only 18-month-olds showed word learning. The results suggest that different types of social cues are available at different ages.     

Two-Year-Olds' Appreciation of the Shared Nature of Novel Object Labels

Two-year-olds' appreciation of the shared nature of object labels versus object preferences was examined in 2 studies. A total of 128 24- to 27-month-olds played a finding game with an experimenter during which they were taught a piece of information about a target object in a nonostensive learning context. In Experiment 1, children were presented with a cue signaling the referent of a novel label. In Experiment 2, children were presented with a cue signaling the experimenter's preference for a particular object. Results indicate children appreciate that knowledge of an object's label is shared between 2 different individuals, but object preferences are not.     

Does category-training facilitate 11-month-olds’ acquisition of unfamiliar category-property associations?

The ability to form category-property links allows infants to extend a property from one category member to another. In two experiments, we examined whether orienting infants to the demands of the task, through categorization training, would facilitate 11-month-old infants’ category-property extensions when familiarized with a single exemplar of an unfamiliar animal category. In Experiment 1, 11-month-olds (N = 35) were trained with two familiar animal-sound pairings (i.e., dog-bark, cat-meow), familiarized with two unfamiliar animal-sound pairings and then tested on their learning and generalization of the unfamiliar animal-sound associations. Across two conditions, Experiment 2 familiarized 11-month-olds (N = 69) to one familiar (i.e., dog-bark) and one novel animal-sound pairing. Conditions differed in their presentation of familiarization trials (i.e., random or blocked). Infants were then tested on their learning and extension of the animal-sound associations. In both experiments, infants did not demonstrate learning of the original animal sound pairing, nor generalization of the sound property to new members of the animal categories. These results indicate that the two category training paradigms implemented in the current studies did not facilitate 11-month-olds’ ability to learn or generalize an unfamiliar animal-sound association, when familiarized with a single exemplar.     

Development of categorization in infancy: advancing forward to the animate/inanimate level

Three experiments are reported on the development of object categorization skills during the second year of life. Experiment 1 examined whether 14- and 18-month-old infants were capable of performing categorization at the animate/inanimate (A/I) level using a sequential touching task. The 18-month-olds were significantly above chance and the 14-month-olds were also approaching above-chance significance, which is the highest level of inclusiveness ever tested in infancy. In Experiments 2 and 3, 14-month-old infants participated in a sequential touching task in which the part features of animate and inanimate objects were modified, allowing for a test of partonomic (i.e., legs and wheels) vs. taxonomic (i.e., animates and inanimates) categorization. Infants did not favor partonomic categorization, suggesting that A/I categories are not formed solely based on object parts such as legs and wheels.     

Two-year-olds exclude novel objects as potential referents of novel words based on pragmatics

Many studies have established that children tend to exclude objects for which they already have a name as potential referents of novel words. In the current study we asked whether this exclusion can be triggered by social-pragmatic context alone without pre-existing words as blockers. Two-year-old children watched an adult looking at a novel object while saying a novel word with excitement. In one condition the adult had not seen the object beforehand, and so the children interpreted the adult’s utterance as referring to the gazed-at object. In another condition the adult and child had previously played jointly with the gazed-at object. In this case, children less often assumed that the adult was referring to the object but rather they searched for an alternative referent - presumably because they inferred that the gazed-at object was old news in their common ground with the adult and so not worthy of excited labeling. Since this inference based on exclusion is highly similar to that underlying the Principle of Contrast/Mutual Exclusivity, we propose that this principle is not purely lexical but rather is based on children’s understanding of how and why people direct one another’s attention to things either with or without language.     

Speed discrimination in 6- and 10-month-old infants follows Weber's law

The speed of a moving object is a critical variable that factors into actions such as crossing a street and catching a ball. However, it is not clear when the ability to discriminate between different speeds develops. Here, we investigated speed discrimination in 6- and 10-month-old infants using a habituation paradigm showing infants events of a ball rolling at different speeds. The 6-month-olds looked longer at novel speeds that differed by a 1:2 ratio than at the familiar ones but showed no difference in looking time to speeds that differed by a 2:3 ratio. In contrast, the 10-month-olds succeeded at discriminating a 2:3 ratio. For both age groups, discrimination was modulated by the ratio between novel and familiar speeds, suggesting that speed discrimination is subject to Weber's law. These findings show striking parallels to previous results in infants' discrimination of duration, size, and number and suggest a shared system for processing different magnitudes.     

Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners

A critical question about early word learning is whether word learning constraints such as mutual exclusivity exist and foster early language acquisition. It is well established that children will map a novel label to a novel rather than a familiar object. Evidence for the role of mutual exclusivity in such indirect word learning has been questioned because: (1) it comes mostly from 2 and 3-year-olds and (2) the findings might be accounted for, not by children avoiding second labels, but by the novel object which creates a lexical gap children are motivated to fill. Three studies addressed these concerns by having only a familiar object visible. Fifteen to seventeen and 18-20-month-olds were selected to straddle the vocabulary spurt. In Study 1, babies saw a familiar object and an opaque bucket as a location to search. Study 2 handed babies the familiar object to play with. Study 3 eliminated an obvious location to search. On the whole, babies at both ages resisted second labels for objects and, with some qualifications, tended to search for a better referent for the novel label. Thus mutual exclusivity is in place before the onset of the naming explosion. The findings demonstrate that lexical constraints enable babies to learn words even under non-optimal conditions--when speakers are not clear and referents are not visible. The results are discussed in relation to an alternative social-pragmatic account.     

Labeling guides object individuation in 12-month-old infants

A new manual search method was used to investigate the impact of naming on object individuation in 12-month-old infants. In Experiment 1, on a two-word trial, an experimenter looked into a box while the infant was watching and provided two labels (e.g., "Look, a fep!" and "Look, a wug!"). On a one-word trial, the experimenter instead repeated the same label (e.g., "Look, a zav!"). After the infant retrieved one object from the box, subsequent search behavior was recorded. Infants searched more persistently (i.e., for a longer duration) after hearing two labels than one, suggesting that hearing two labels led the infants to expect two objects inside the box. In Experiment 2, infants' search behavior did not differ depending on whether they heard one or two emotional expressions, suggesting that the facilitation effect observed in Experiment 1 may be specific to linguistic expressions. Thus, we provide the first evidence that infants as young as 12 months are able to use intentional and referential cues to guide their object representations. These findings also suggest that a rudimentary version of the mutual-exclusivity constraint may be functional by the end of the first year.     

Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants

Can object names and functions act as cues to categories for infants? In Study 1, 14- and 18-month-old infants were shown novel category exemplars along with a function, a name, or no cues. Infants were then asked to "find another one," choosing between 2 novel objects (1 from the familiar category and the other not). Infants at both ages were more likely to select the category match in the function than in the no-cue condition. However, only at 18 months did naming the objects enhance categorization. Study 2 shows that names can facilitate categorization for 14-month-olds as well when a hint regarding the core meaning of the objects (the function of a single familiarization object) is provided.     

Infants' association of linguistic labels with causal actions

Six experiments examined infants' ability to associate nonsense words with 2 causal actions: pushing and pulling. Although Experiment 1 found that 14-month-olds failed to form word-action associations, 18-month-olds in Experiment 2 provided reliable evidence of doing so. Additional experiments explored why 14-month-olds may not have formed such an association. Experiment 3 examined 14-month-olds' ability to discriminate a change in either the action or the label when the other element was held constant. Infants discriminated the change in label but not the change in action. When the language labels were replaced with music (Experiments 4-6), 14-month-old infants responded in terms of and discriminated between pushing and pulling. These results, in comparison with those from Experiments 1 and 3, suggest that for 14 month-olds, attempting to associate labels with actions may interfere with their discrimination of similar actions.     

Young children associate novel words with complex objects rather than salient parts

How do children learn associations between novel words and complex perceptual displays? Using a visual preference procedure, the authors tested 12- and 19-month-olds to see whether the infants would associate a novel word with a complex 2-part object or with either of that object's parts, both of which were potentially objects in their own right and 1 of which was highly salient to infants. At both ages, children's visual fixation times during test were greater to the entire complex object than to the salient part (Experiment 1) or to the less salient part (Experiment 2)--when the original label was requested. Looking times to the objects were equal if a new label was requested or if neutral audio was used during training (Experiment 3). Thus, from 12 months of age, infants associate words with whole objects, even those that could potentially be construed as 2 separate objects and even if 1 of the parts is salient.     

Adjectives really do modify nouns: the incremental and restricted nature of early adjective acquisition

By 24 months, most children spontaneously and correctly use adjectives. Yet prior laboratory research that has studied lexical acquisition in young children reports that children up to 3-years-old map novel adjectives to object properties only in very limited situations (Child Development 59 (1988) 411; Child Development 64 (1993) 1651; Child Development 71 (2000) 649; Developmental Psychology 36 (2000) 571; Child Development 69 (1998) 1313). In Experiments 1 and 2 we introduced 36-month-olds (Experiment 1) and 24-month-olds (Experiment 2) to novel adjectives while providing rich referential and syntactic information to indicate what the novel words mean. Specifically, we used a given novel adjective to describe multiple familiar objects which shared a salient property; in addition we used the adjectives in full noun phrases, not in conjunction with pronouns. Under these conditions, both groups mapped novel adjectives onto object properties. In Experiment 3 we asked whether the rich referential information was responsible for the successful outcome of the previous two experiments; we introduced novel adjectives to 2- and 3-year-olds as in Experiments 1 and 2, but the adjectives modified nouns of vague (very general) reference ("one", or "thing"). Under these conditions the children failed. We suggest that young word learners require access to the taxonomy of the object type so that the relevant property can be identified. The taxonomically specific nouns of Experiments 1 and 2 accomplish this, whereas the more general, semantically bleached nominals in Experiment 3 do not. Taken together with related findings in the literature, these findings favor an account of lexical acquisition in which layers of information become available incrementally, as a consequence of solving prior parts of the learning problem.