Transcript On the Path to Verb Learning

Foundations of Verb Learning:
Comparison Helps Infants Abstract
Event Components
Shannon M. Pruden1, Wendy Shallcross2 &
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek2
University of Chicago1 & Temple University2
Abstraction of Semantic
Components
Are infants able to
decompose scenes
into constituent parts
relevant to linguistic
expressions in
language?
(Clark, 2003, p. 168)
Semantic Components that
Relational Terms Encode

Containment

Path

Support

Manner

Degree of Fit
Semantic Components that
Relational Terms Encode

Containment

Path

Support

Manner

Degree of Fit
Why Path and Manner?

Universally codified in languages across
world. (Jackendoff, 1983; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 1985)

Packaged 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).

Path may be conceptual primitive needed for
learning motion verbs. (Mandler, 2004)
Noticing Changes in Path and
Manner

7-month-olds notice changes in
path and manner.
(Pulverman et al., 2004)

10-month-olds notice changes in
path and manner
• More naturalistic events with human
actors.
(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
categorized as
the same action
whether
performed by
Carl Lewis or my
Grandma.

Are infants able to abstract
invariant actions encoded in
relational terms?
What is the mechanism infants are
using to abstract path and manner?
Comparison as a Learning
Mechanism…

Comparison is a learning mechanism used
acquire structured rule-like knowledge (Gentner,
2003; Gentner & Medina, 1998).
Comparison among exemplars promotes
abstraction of relations.
Children learn theory-like relational information.
Informs our spatial concepts.
How Comparison Works

Comparison involves structurally aligning two
representations.

Result of alignment process is that corresponding
relations become more salient.
(Gentner, 1983; Gentner & Markman, 1997)

Comparison helps children note the similarities
and differences of two representations.
Evidence for Role of Comparison

Comparison helpful in learning new
adjectives and verbs
(Childers, 2006; Gentner & Namy, 2000;
Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000)

Comparison also helps infants categorize
objects
(Oakes & Ribar, 2005)

Comparison of events promote
abstraction of invariant actions?
The Studies

“Can pre-linguistic infants abstract an invariant path or
manner?”
– Study 1a: Can 7- to 9-month old infants abstract an
invariant path across multiple exemplars of manner?
– Study 1b: Can 7- to 9-month old infants abstract an
invariant manner across varying paths?

“Is comparison a mechanism that facilitates the
abstraction of path and manner?”
– Study 2a: Do 7- to 9-month-olds use comparison to
abstract the invariant path across multiple exemplars
of manner?
– Study 2b: Do 7- to 9-month-olds use comparison to
abstract the invariant manner across varying paths?
Predictions

No salience preference for test clips will be
found across all studies.

Infants who are shown familiarization
events in pairs rather than sequentially will
show increased attention during
familiarization
– With two events instead of one, infants have
more to examine.

Pre-linguistic infants will use comparison
to abstract the event components
necessary for language.
Our Paradigm

Preferential Looking
Paradigm: forcedchoice split-screen


(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996)
Dependent Variable:
Looking Time
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

Salience Trials

Four Familiarization
Trials

Two Test Trials

All trials are 12 s
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
– Study 1a & 1b: Sequential presentation- 1 clip
shown during each trial.
– Study 2a & 2b: Simultaneous presentation - 2 clips
shown simultaneously during each trial.

Trials are separated by attention-getter:
– Picture of a baby
– Accompanied by music
QuickTime™ and a
Radius 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 abstract the invariant
component will show a significant
preference for one of the test clips.
Study 1a: Can Infants Abstract the
Invariant Path?
Participants

30 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.
Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials
– Importantly - no linguistic stimuli
accompanied events

Familiarization trials presented
sequentially - one at a time.

Vary manner across same path
– Example, “Around”
Familiarization Trial 1
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Bend Around
Familiarization Trial 2
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Twist Around
Familiarization Trial 3
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Spin Around
Familiarization Trial 4
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Toe Touch Around
Test Trials
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
“Flap Around”
“Flap Past”
Novel Manner, Familiar Path
In-category event
Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
Can pre-linguistic infants abstract
an invariant path?
Novelty Preference Score
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Study 1a se q ue ntia l
pre s e nta tio n
Study 2a sim ulta ne o us
pre s e nta tio n
Study 1b: Can Infants Abstract the
Invariant Manner?
Participants

30 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.
Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials
– Importantly - no linguistic stimuli
accompanied events

Familiarization trials presented sequentially one at a time.

Vary path across same manner
– Example, “Twist”
Can pre-linguistic infants abstract
an invariant manner?
Novelty Preference Score
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Study 1 b s equential
pres entation
Study 1: Summary
7-9 months
Sequential Presentation
Path: no preference
Manner: no preference
**Cannot abstract
Simultaneous Presentation
Path: ?
Manner: ?
?
Study 2a: Does Comparison Help
Infants Abstract the Invariant Path?
Participants

18 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.
Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials

Vary manner across same path
 Example, “Under”

Stimuli are presented simultaneously, in
pairs, to allow infants to compare
events.
Familiarization Trial 1
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Spin Under - Side Bend Under
Familiarization Trial 2
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Toe Touch Under - Flap Under
Familiarization Trial 3
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Side Bend Under - Toe Touch Under
Familiarization Trial 4
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Flap Under - Spin Under
Test Trials
QuickTime™ and a
DV/DVCPRO - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Starry “Twist Under”
Starry “Twist Over”
Novel Manner, Familiar Path
In-category event
Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
How long did infants view each
familiarization trial?
Average Looking Time
(seconds)
12
10
**
Study 1a sequential
presentation
8
6
Study 2a simultaneous
presentation
4
2
0
* p < .05
Does comparison facilitate the
abstraction of path?
Novelty Preference Score
0.65
0.6
* *
*
Study 1a se q ue ntia l
pre s e nta tio n
Study 2a sim ulta ne o us
pre s e nta tio n
0.55
0.5
0.45
* p < .05
Summary: Path Study

Predictions
Increased attention to
familiarization events.
Results
 No increase in attention
to familiarization events


Comparison facilitates
finding the invariant
path
Comparison facilitates
finding the invariant
path
Study 2b: Does Comparison Help
Infants Abstract the Invariant Manner?
Participants

18 7- to 9-month-olds

Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.

All infants full-term births.

Equal numbers of males and females.
Familiarization Trials

Four familiarization trials

Vary path across same manner
 Example, “Spin”

Stimuli are presented simultaneously, in
pairs, rather than sequentially.
How long did infants view each
familiarization trial?
Average Looking Time (seconds)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Study 1 b s equential
pres entation
Study 2 b s imultaneous
pres entation
Does comparison facilitate the
abstraction of manner?
Novelty Preference Score
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Study 1 b s equential
pres entation
Study 2 b s imultaneous
pres entation
Summary: Manner Study


Predictions
Increased attention to
familiarization events.
Results
 No increase in
attention to
familiarization events.
Comparison facilitates
finding the invariant
manner.

Comparison does not
appear to provide a
facilitative effect in
abstracting manner
Summary
7-9 months
Sequential Presentation
Path: no preference
Manner: no preference
**Cannot abstract
Simultaneous Presentation
Path: novelty preference
Manner: no preference
**Can abstract - depends
on semantic component
What does all of this mean?

These studies show
 Infants can abstract the invariant actions that
are encoded in relational terms, like motion
verbs.
 Comparison helps infants abstract the
invariant path and may be a mechanism by
which infants are able to abstract invariant
actions.

Developmental Progression
 Path first, then manner
Why does Comparison Help?

Comparison promotes structural alignment of
similarities.
– Infants who weren’t able to see similarities before are able
to see them now with comparison.

Reduces visual short-term memory load.
– Infants have to remember less between familiarization
trials.
– Simultaneous and successive presentation designs
impose different memory demands on infants.
– Our label studies suggest this is not the case (Pruden & HirshPasek, 2006)

Infants have more time to view each event clip.
– Each event clip is seen twice during familiarization, rather
than once, as in our original study.
Future Studies

Path then manner developmental trend
 Do 10- to 12-month-olds use comparison to
abstract the invariant manner?
 Would we see cross-linguistic differences in our
studies?

Individual differences in performance
 Huge variability in manner study.
 Do individual differences predict later language
development?
Acknowledgements…
Dr. Roberta
Golinkoff
Meredith Jones Sarah Roseberry Tilbe Goksun
Thanks to all the parents and children who participated in
these studies at the Temple University Infant Lab and
Infant Language Project at U. Delaware.
QUESTIONS?
For information contact:
Shannon Pruden
[email protected]
Visit my website at:
home.uchicago.edu/~spruden