Foundations of Verb Learning: Labels Promote Action Category Formation Shannon M. Pruden & Kathy Hirsh-Pasek Temple University.

Foundations of Verb Learning: Labels Promote Action Category

Formation

Shannon M. Pruden & Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

Temple University

Early Verb Learning: The Research

Verbs are difficult to learn (Gentner, 1982; Gillette, et al., 1999; Imai et al., 2003; Meyer et al., 2003).

Paradox: Verbs appear in children’s earliest vocabularies (Choi, 1998; Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Fenson, et al., 1994; Nelson, 1989; Tardif, 1996).

Why are verbs difficult to learn?

Prerequisites for Learning Verbs

1. The conceptualization of actions and events.

2. The mapping of words to these actions and events.

Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001

1. Pay attention to actions.

2. Form categories of these actions.

3. Map words to these actions.

Golinkoff et al., 2002

Why are Verbs Difficult to Learn?

A mapping problem?

ORLack of conceptual

knowledge?

Most of what has been done on verbs…

Early production of relational terms Choi & Bowerman, 1991

Choi & Gopnik, 1995 Tardif, 1996

Mapping relational terms onto actions and events Choi, et al., 1999

Maguire, et al., 2003 Naigles, 1996

Little research addresses the question of whether infants have the conceptual

knowledge needed to learn verbs.

Prerequisites for Learning Verbs

1. The conceptualization of actions and events.

2. The mapping of words to these actions and events.

Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001

1. Pay attention to actions.

2. Form categories of these actions.

3. Map words to these actions.

Golinkoff et al., 2002

Conceptual Prerequisites in Place?

Some speculate that conceptual prerequisites are in place at an early age.

“relations…are, I suspect, perceived quite early…it is not perceiving relations but packaging and lexicalizing them that is difficult” (Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001, p.326)

“vocabulary acquisition in the real case may reduce mainly to a mapping problem” (Snedeker & Gleitman, 2004, p. 280)

“the young child’s conceptual repertoire may be rich and varied enough from the start…” (Snedeker & Gleitman, 2004, p. 261).

Semantic Components that Relational Terms Encode

Spatial Expressions Containment

Support

Degree of Fit

Motion Verbs Path

Manner

Result

Languages package these components in different ways

Slobin, 2001; Talmy, 1985

Semantic Components that Relational Terms Encode

Spatial Expressions Containment

Support

Degree of Fit

Motion Verbs Path

Manner

Result

Path and Manner in Motion Verbs

Focus on path and manner:(1) Universally codified in languages across world.

Jackendoff, 1983; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 1985

(2) They are treated differently across languages.Slobin, 2001; Talmy, 1985

English - Manner encoded in verb; path encoded in preposition.

Spanish - Path encoded in verb; manner encoded in adverb (optionally).

(3) Path may be conceptual primitive needed for learning motion verbs.

Mandler, 2004

Early Event Perception

Are infants able to” decompose scenes into constituent parts relevant to linguistic expressions in language?”

(Clark, 2003, p. 168)

Discriminating Path and Manner

14-month-olds discriminate path and manner. Low vocab. infants:more attention to changes in path High vocab. infants: more attention to changes in

manner

7-month-olds discriminate path and mannerPulverman

et al. (2003; 2004)

10-month-olds discriminate path and manner More naturalistic events with humans.

Casasola, Hohenstein, & Naigles (2003)

Categorization of Actions

Can infants form categories of actions?

“words…refer to categories of objects and events, or properties of these things.”

Oakes & Rakison (2003)

Therefore, motion verbs label categories of actions and events rather than single events.

For example, “running”

· “Running” is considered the same

action whether

performed by Carl Lewis or

Grandma.

Finding the Invariant Path and Manner in Motion Events

Can infants abstract the invariant action within a motion event?

Pruden, et al. (2004)

Infants (7 - 15 months) familiarized to events from the same category. Same path across multiple exemplars of manner

(Path Study)

Same manner across multiple exemplars of path (Manner Study)

Path Study: Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials Importantly - no linguistic stimuli accompanied

events

Vary manner across same path Example, “Around”

Bend Around Twist Around Spin Around Toe Touch Around

Path Study: Test Trials

“Flap Around”Novel Manner, Familiar Path

In-category event

“Flap Past”Novel Manner, Novel Path

Out-of-category event

Results

Can infants find the invariant action?

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Path Manner

Novelty Preference Score (%)

7- to 9-months

10- to 12-months

13- to 15-months

Summary: Finding the Invariant Action 10-month-olds were able to find invariant path

across varying manners.

13-month-olds were able to find invariant manner across varying paths.

Path to manner developmental progression

There is a group of infant in both studies who do not find the invariant action.

· 7- to 9-month-olds

Conceptual prerequisites to learn verbs may be in place early in life

The next step in learning verbs…Adding language to non-verbal scene

What effect might language have on the processing of

these non-linguistic scenes?

Two Possibilities

Adding language increases complexity of the task and may hinder category formation

(Stager & Werker, 1997)

Adding language facilitates category formation

(Balaban & Waxman, 1997; Waxman & Markow, 1995)

To our knowledge, only one study has added language to an event categorization task…

Spatial Categorization and Labels

10- to 18-month-olds: no abstract spatial category of “on” (Casasola & Cohen, 2002)

Can a linguistic label facilitate infants’ spatial categorization of support relations?(Casasola, 2005)

Linguistic label helped infants form an abstract category of “on”

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Loose-fit

support

Tight-fit

support

“ON”

Expanding on Casasola…

1. Exploring categorization of events based on path and manner.

2. Testing pre-verbal infants

The Present Studies

Our Paradigm

Preferential Looking Paradigm: forced-choice split-screen

(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996)

Dependent Variable: Looking Time

Novel, easily manipulated and controlled stimuli

Stimuli Across Studies

6 Paths Over Under Past Around Behind In Front

6 Manners Flap Spin Twist Side Bend Bend Forward Toe-Touch

General Method

Introduction

Salience Trials

Four Familiarization Trials

Test Trials

All trials are 12 s

Introduction Trial

· Purpose: To ensure infants look to both sides

Salience Trial

Purpose To show that infants do not have any a priori

preferences for test events.

What they see Two clips simultaneously. Same clips they see at test.

Assumption Infants will not have a preference for either

clip.

Familiarization Trials

Four exemplars of the category are shown.

Trials are separated by attention-getter: Picture of a baby Accompanied by music

QuickTime™ and aRadius SoftDV™ - NTSC decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Test Trials

Test trials Two clips shown simultaneously In-category event (familiar exemplar) Out-of-category event (novel exemplar)

Predictions Infants who can find the invariant action

will show a preference for one of these clips.

Predictions

No salience preference for test clips will be found

Infants will show increased attention during familiarization Labels heighten attention (ala. Baldwin & Markman,

1989 with objects)

Labeling will help infants abstract the invariant path or manner

Study 1: Do Labels Help Infants Abstract the Invariant Path?

24 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.

Participants

Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials Same stimuli/design as Pruden et al. (2004)

Vary manner across same path Example, “Under”

During each familiarization trial, they hear novel verb “javing” 4 times.

Spin under Toe touch under Side bend under Flap under

Salience/Test Trials

Starry “Twist Under”

Novel Manner, Familiar PathIn-category event

Starry “Twist Over”

Novel Manner, Novel PathOut-of-category event

8-month-old infant

Results: Salience Preference

Is there a salience preference?

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Study

Novelty Preference

Score (%)

PathManner

Results: Enhanced Attention

Results: Finding the Invariant Path

DOES A LABEL HELP CHILDREN ABSTRACT THE INVARIANT ACTION?

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

PATH STUDY MANNER STUDY

Novelty Preference Score (%)

LABELNO LABEL

Summary: Path Study

Our Predictions No Salience Preference

Increased attention during familiarization

Label facilitates finding the invariant path

Our Results No Salience Preference

No increase in attention during familiarization

Label facilitates finding the invariant path

Study 2: Do Labels Help Infants Abstract the Invariant Manner?

24 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.

Participants

Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials Same stimuli/design as Pruden et al. (2004)

Vary path across same manner Example, “Twist”

During each familiarization trial, they hear novel verb “javing” 4 times.

Twist around Twist in front Twist over Twist Past

Salience/Test Trials

“Twist Under”Familiar Manner, Novel Path

In-category event

“Toe Touch Under”

Novel Manner, Novel PathOut-of-category event

Results: Salience Preference

Is there a salience preference?

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Study

Novelty Preference

Score (%)

PathManner

Results: Enhanced Attention

DOES A LABEL INCREASE ATTENTION?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

PATH STUDY MANNER STUDY

Average looking time during familiarization (sec)

LABEL

NO LABEL

Results: Finding the Invariant Manner

DOES A LABEL HELP CHILDREN ABSTRACT THE INVARIANT ACTION?

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

PATH STUDY MANNER STUDY

Novelty Preference Score (%)

LABELNO LABEL

Summary: Manner Study

Our Predictions No Salience Preference

Increased attention during familiarization

Label facilitates finding the invariant manner

Our Results No Salience Preference

Increased attention during familiarization

Label provides no facilitative effect in finding invariant manner

What does all of this mean?

These studies showInfants can abstract the invariant actions

that are encoded in relational terms, like motion verbs

Labels help infants find invariant actions

Developmental ProgressionPath first, then manner

What are labels doing? Auditory stimulation enhances attention to objects

(Baldwin & Markman, 1989; Roberts & Jacob, 1991)

Labels invite categorization(Balaban & Waxman, 1997; Waxman & Markow, 1995)

Labels highlight similarities and promote comparison

(Gentner & Namy, 1999; Lowenstein & Gentner, 2005)

Is there anything special about a label?Tone studyComplex musical melodies study

Future Studies: Role of Comparison

Comparison helpful in categorization, learning new adjectives and verbs. (Childers, in press; Gentner & Namy, 2000;

Oakes & Ribar, 2004; Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000)

Active comparison of actions - promote abstraction of invariant actions?

Current Studies Sequential familiarization Next Study

Simultaneous familiarization

Future Studies - Trends

Path then manner developmental trend

Would 10- to 12-month-olds use a label to find the invariant manner?

Would we see cross-linguistic differences in our studies?14- to 17-month-old Spanish-speaking infants show

same developmental pattern as English-speaking infants in discrimination task.

What about abstracting the invariant action?

Future Studies: Individual Differences

Individual differences in performance Some children did not

show a novelty preference

Do individual differences predict later language development?

Path Study with Label: 7- to 9-month-olds

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Novelty Preference Score (%)

Acknowledgements…

Thanks to all the parents and children who participated in these studies at the Temple Infant Lab.

Meredith Jones

Natalie Sheridan

Gwen Albertson

Dr. Roberta

Golinkoff

QUESTIONS?

For information contact:

Shannon Pruden [email protected]

Visit my website at: astro.temple.edu/~spruden