Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Foundations of Verb Learning: Infants Categorize Path and
Manner in Motion Events
Shannon M. Pruden, Kathy Hirsh-PasekTemple University
Mandy J. Maguire & Meredith A. MeyerUniversity 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
e.g. enter, come, approach
Manner: the way in which the agent moves e.g. walk, dance, swagger, sway, stroll
Result: 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 non-linguistic motion events
Pulverman and colleagues (2002; 2003): 7 month olds discriminate path and manner 14-17 month olds discriminate path and manner.
Casasola, Hohenstein, & Naigles (2003): 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
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
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
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)
Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.
Equal numbers of males and females.
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”Novel Manner, Familiar Path
In-category event
“Flap Past”Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
Was there a salience preference?
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Trial
Novelty Preference
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
13-15 month olds
TestSalience
Results- Path Categorization
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Trial
Novelty Preference
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
13-15 month olds
TestSalience
*
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
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)
Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.
Equal numbers of males and females.
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”Novel Manner, Novel Path
Out-of-category event
“Twist Under”Familiar Manner, Novel Path
In-category event
Was there a salience preference?
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Trial
Novelty Preference
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
13-15 month olds
TestSalience
Results- Manner Categorization
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Trial
Novelty Preference
7-9 month olds
10-12 month olds
13-15 month olds
*
TestSalience
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: Summary- Our interpretation
7-9 months
Path: no preference
Manner: no preference
No categorization
What do these results mean?
10-12 months
Path: familiar
Manner: no preference
Categorize path
13-15 months
Path: familiar
Manner: novel
Categorize pathand manner
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.
