Transcript Foundations of Verb Learning: Infants Categorize Path and

Foundations of Verb Learning:
Infants Categorize Path and
Manner in Motion Events
Shannon M. Pruden, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
Temple University
Mandy J. Maguire & Meredith A. Meyer
University of Louisville
University of Oregon
Not just verbs…

Relational terms

In English, relations are encoded in, not
only verbs, but also in prepositions
What we know about verbs…

Verbs are hard to learn (Gentner, 1988)
Actions are ephemeral
Verbs are polysemous
“Run” - 42 entries vs. “ball” - 9 entries
Verbs can encode diverse components
Path, manner, result, and instrument
The Paradox

Verbs appear in children’s earliest
vocabularies





Choi, 1998
Choi and Bowerman, 1991
Fenson, et al., 1994
Nelson, 1989
Tardiff, 1996
Demonstration: Verbs are hard
Watch, Meredith’s blicking? What does blicking refer to?
Possible meanings of “blicking”:

Path: the trajectory of agent


Manner: the way in which the agent moves


e.g. walk, dance, swagger, sway, stroll
Result:


e.g. enter, come, approach
e.g. open, close
Instrument:

e.g. hammer, shovel
Path and Manner

Focus on path and manner:
 (1) Appear in most languages.

(2) They are treated differently across
languages.


English - Manner encoded in verb; path encoded
in preposition.
Spanish - Path encoded in verb; manner encoded
in adverb (optionally).
Most of what has been done
on verbs…

Early production of relational terms




Choi & Bowerman, 1991
Tardif, 1996
Gopnik & Choi, 1995
Mapping relational terms onto actions and
events



Choi, et al., 1999
Maguire, et al., 2003
Naigles, 1996
But…Building verbs requires
three steps:

A) Attention to non-linguistic components of
action

B) Where action meets words

C) Productive use of verbs in grammar.

Little work has been done on attention to
non-linguistic components of action.
This Talk is in Four Parts

Part 1: Path & manner in non-linguistic motion
events

Part 2: Two Studies- Can infants form
categories of path and manner?

Part 3: Interpreting these results

Part 4: Future Directions
Part 1: Path and manner in nonlinguistic motion events

Pulverman and colleagues (2002; 2003):



Casasola, Hohenstein, & Naigles (2003):


7 month olds discriminate path and manner
14-17 month olds discriminate path and manner.
10 month olds discriminate path and manner.
To date, this is of what is known about path and
manner in non-linguistic motion events.
So What’s Missing…

Oakes & Rakison (2003):


“words…refer to categories of objects and
events, or properties of these things.”
Therefore, 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.
Part 2: Two Studies

Study 1: Can infants form categories of
path across multiple exemplars of
manner?

Study 2: Can infants form categories of
manner across multiple exemplars of
path?
How to address these
questions:

Use a proven paradigm

Use novel, easily manipulated and
controlled stimuli

Several exemplars of path and manner

A consistent design across both studies
Paradigm

Preferential Looking
Paradigm: forced-choice
split-screen
(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996)

Non-linguistic task

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
Design across studies

Introduction

Salience Trials

Four Familiarization Trials

Test Trials

Trials are 12 seconds
Introduction Trial

Purpose: To ensure infants look to both sides
Salience Trial

Purpose


What they see



To show that infants do not have any a priori
preferences for test events.
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
Test Trials

Test trials




Two clips shown simultaneously
In-category event (familiar exemplar)
Out-of-category event (novel exemplar)
Predictions

Infants who categorize will show a preference
for one of these clips.
Study 1: Path Categorization
Subjects


Mono-lingual
English-speaking
homes.

Equal numbers of
males and females.
24 7-9 month olds
(M = 8.72, SD = 1.01)

24 10-12 month olds
(M = 11.29, SD = 0.87)

15 13-15 month olds
(M = 14.80, SD = 1.07)
Salience Trial
“Flap Around”
“Flap Past”
Familiarization Trials for Path

Four familiarization trials

Same path across multiple exemplars of manner

Vary manner across same path

Example, “around”
Familiarization Trial 1:
“Side Bend Around”
Familiarization Trial 2:
“Twist Around”
Familiarization Trial 3:
“Spin Around”
Familiarization Trial 4:
“Toe Touch Around”
Test Trials
“Flap Around”
“Flap Past”
Novel Manner, Familiar Path
In-category event
Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
Was there a salience
preference?
0.65
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
0.6
Novelty Preference
13-15 month olds
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Salience
Trial
Test
Results- Path Categorization
0.65
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
0.6
Novelty Preference
13-15 month olds
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
*
0.35
Salience
Trial
Test
Study 1: Conclusions

No a priori preferences for the test clips

7-9 month olds were not able to categorize
path

10-12 and 13-15 month olds categorized path

Familiarity preference
Study 2: Manner Categorization
Subjects


Mono-lingual
English-speaking
homes.

Equal numbers of
males and females.
24 7-9 month olds
(M = 8.47, SD = 0.96)

24 10-12 month olds
(M = 11.49, SD = 0.80)

23 13-15 month olds
(M = 14.75, SD = 0.94)
Salience Trial
“Toe Touch Under”
“Twist Under”
Familiarization Trials for Manner

Four familiarization trials

Same manner across multiple exemplars of path

Vary path across same manner

Example, “twist”
Familiarization Trial 1:
“Twist Over”
Familiarization Trial 2:
“Twist Around”
Familiarization Trial 3:
“Twist In Front”
Familiarization Trial 4:
“Twist Past”
Test Trials
“Toe Touch Under”
“Twist Under”
Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
Familiar Manner, Novel Path
In-category event
Was there a salience
preference?
0.65
0.6
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
Novelty Preference
13-15 month olds
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Salience
Trial
Test
Results- Manner Categorization
0.65
0.6
7-9 month olds
*
10-12 month olds
Novelty Preference
13-15 month olds
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Salience
Trial
Test
Study 2: Conclusions

No a priori preferences for the test clips

7-9 and 10-12 month olds were not able to
categorize manner

13-15 month olds categorized manner

Novelty Preference
Novelty/Familiarity Preference

Why do infants prefer to look at novelty in
manner categorization study, but familiarity in
path categorization study?


Infants prefer familiar stimuli when stimuli are complex and
need time to process (Hunter, et al., 1983)
Maybe the infants need more time to process
these stimuli

Independent Samples t-test with average familiarization time
for path study vs. manner study: t (132) = 2.472, p<.05.

Infants look longer at familiarization clips for path study.
Part 3: SummaryOur interpretation
7-9 months
10-12 months
13-15 months
Path: no preference
Path: familiar
Path: familiar
Manner: no preference
Manner: no preference
Manner: novel
No categorization
Categorize path Categorize path
and manner
What do these results mean?
What does all of this mean?

First study to investigate whether infants can
categorize path and manner

Developmental Progression

Path first, then manner

Preverbal infants can abstract and categorize relations

Learning verbs is hard, but conceptual foundations are
present
Part 4: Future Directions

Does labeling facilitate categorization?

What other types of event categories can
infants form?

Would we see similar results with other
stimuli?

Would we see same trends for infants
learning other languages?
Acknowledgements…





Natalie Hansell
Beate Müller
Heike Herrmann
Dr. Nora Newcombe
Carolyn Fenter




Dr. Roberta
Golinkoff
Rachel Pulverman
Anthony Dick
NSF
Thanks to all the parents and children who
participated in these studies at the Temple University
Infant Lab.
QUESTIONS???
Correspondence: Shannon Pruden (email: [email protected])