Information In Word Learning Research Articles

The effect of prosodic congruency on novel adjective learning in adults and children

Prosody is used to indicate emotions, disambiguate syntax, and provide meaning. Less is known about prosody in word learning, but congruent prosody (e.g., loud/low pitch for large) leads to better memory than incongruent prosody (e.g., quiet/high pitch for large) for novel adjectives in adults (Shintel, Anderson, & Fenn, 2014). Children may also benefit from congruent prosodic information in word learning. This current research explores prosodic congruency and novel adjective learning in adults (Study 1) and preschool children (Study 2). Participants learned novel adjectives that were either congruent or incongruent in prosody and then they were tested in an implicit/picture task and an explicit/definition task. Although the prosody was not necessary to learn the words, the congruent condition showed greater accuracy than the incongruent condition across both tasks for adults and for the explicit task for children. This is the first demonstration that preschool children can benefit from congruent prosody, not just for referent selection, but also for learning novel adjectives.

Morphological cues as an aid to word learning: a cross-situational word learning study

ABSTRACT Learning a language with complex morphology poses a challenge to language learners, especially adults, who may need to acquire unfamiliar grammatical categories. One possible advantage to languages with complex morphology is that the morphology could provide cues to word meaning. The hypothesis that morphology can bootstrap adult word learning is tested across four cross-situational word learning experiments. Adult learners were exposed to words from a novel language with CVCV stems and -CV suffixes. In the Experimental conditions, the suffixes consistently mapped to semantic categories (e.g. [-ke] for fruits). In the Control condition, the suffixes did not provide any consistent semantic information. Participants in the Experimental conditions outperformed participants in the Control conditions, but only when there were sufficient opportunities to infer the morphology in the initial learning phases. These results highlight adults’ ability to rapidly learn novel morphological information, and use this information in word learning.

Adults Use Cross-Situational Statistics for Word Learning in a Conservative Way

This paper examined how much adults rely on cross-situational information in word learning by comparing their gaze behavior in a word learning task with models of four learning strategies. We manipulated the input type of situations (consecutive versus interleaved) and the co-occurrence frequencies between words and objects so that adult learners could infer correct word-object mappings based on cross-situational information. There are two key findings. First, an exposure-by-exposure analysis of gaze behavior during the word learning procedure revealed that most participants collected sufficient cross-situational information before they developed a preference for one particular word-object mapping, with consecutive as well as interleaved situations. Second, a classification approach in which individual gaze behavior was attributed to different word learning strategies showed that participants relied mostly on a conservative cross-situational learning (XSL) strategy, compared to Associative XSL, Propose-but-Verify, and Random strategies. Adults relied on Conservative XSL when presented with consecutive and interleaved situations, but they shifted toward Associative XSL when presented with interleaved situations.

Slowly but Surely: Adverbs Support Verb Learning in 2-Year-Olds

To acquire the meanings of verbs, toddlers make use of the surrounding linguistic information. For example, 2-year-olds successfully acquire novel transitive verbs that appear in semantically rich frames containing content nouns (“The boy is gonna pilk a balloon”), but they have difficulty with pronominal frames (“He is gonna pilk it”) (Arunachalam & Waxman, 2010). We hypothesized that adverbs might facilitate toddlers’ verb learning in these sparse pronominal frames if their semantic content directed toddlers’ attention to aspects of the event that are relevant to the verb’s meaning (e.g., the manner of motion). As predicted, the semantic information from a specific manner-of-motion adverb (slowly) supported verb learning, but other adverbs lacking this semantic content (nicely, right now) did not. These results provide the first evidence that adverbs can facilitate verb learning in toddlers and highlight the interaction of syntactic and semantic information in word learning.

2.5-Year-olds use cross-situational consistency to learn verbs under referential uncertainty

Recent evidence shows that children can use cross-situational statistics to learn new object labels under referential ambiguity (e.g., Smith & Yu, 2008). Such evidence has been interpreted as support for proposals that statistical information about word-referent co-occurrence plays a powerful role in word learning. But object labels represent only a fraction of the vocabulary children acquire, and arguably represent the simplest case of word learning based on observations of world scenes. Here we extended the study of cross-situational word learning to a new segment of the vocabulary, action verbs, to permit a stronger test of the role of statistical information in word learning. In two experiments, on each trial 2.5-year-olds encountered two novel intransitive (e.g., “She’s pimming!”; Experiment 1) or transitive verbs (e.g., “She’s pimming her toy!”; Experiment 2) while viewing two action events. The consistency with which each verb accompanied each action provided the only source of information about the intended referent of each verb. The 2.5-year-olds used cross-situational consistency in verb learning, but also showed significant limits on their ability to do so as the sentences and scenes became slightly more complex. These findings help to define the role of cross-situational observation in word learning.

Better Processing of Consonantal Over Vocalic Information in Word Learning at 16 Months of Age.

Previous research using the name-based categorization task has shown that 20-month-old infants can simultaneously learn 2 words that only differ by 1 consonantal feature but fail to do so when the words only differ by 1 vocalic feature. This asymmetry was taken as evidence for the proposal that consonants are more important than vowels at the lexical level. This study explores this consonant-vowel asymmetry in 16-month-old infants, using an interactive word learning task. It shows that the pattern of the 16-month-olds is the same as that of the 20-month-olds. Infants succeeded with 1-feature consonantal contrasts (either place or voicing) but were at chance level with 1-feature vocalic contrasts (either place or height). These results thus contribute to a growing body of evidence establishing, from early infancy to adulthood, that consonants and vowels have different roles in lexical acquisition and processing.

Déjà vu all over again: Re-revisiting the conceptual status of early word learning: Comment on Smith and Samuelson (2006).

The authors assert that L. B. Smith and L. Samuelson's (2006) most recent critique of A. E. Booth, S. R. Waxman, and Y. T. Huang's (2005) work missed its mark, deflecting attention from the important theoretical difference between the two sets of authors' positions and focusing instead on imagined differences and minor expositional complaints. The authors' goal in this response is twofold. First, they aim to redirect attention to the 1 clear difference between the 2 theoretical positions regarding word learning, a difference that is focused on the role of conceptual (in conjunction with perceptual) information in word learning. Second, they place L. B. Smith and L. Samuelson's (2006) current critique in the context of previous exchanges.

Young children's use of range‐of‐reference information in word learning

An important source of information about a new word's meaning (and its associated lexical class) is its range of reference: the number of objects to which it is extended. Ninety toddlers (mean age = 37 months) participated in a study to determine whether young children can use this information in word learning. When a novel word was presented with unambiguous lexical class cues as either a proper name (i.e. 'His name is DAXY') or an adjective (i.e. 'He is very DAXY'), toddlers interpreted it appropriately, regardless of whether it was applied to one or both members of a pair of identical-looking stuffed animals. They restricted a proper name to the designated animal(s); but they generalized an adjective from the labeled animal(s) to a new animal bearing the same property. However, when the word was presented with no specific lexical class cues (i.e. 'DAXY'), toddlers made significantly different interpretations, depending on the number of referents. When the word was applied to one animal, they restricted it to that animal (consistent with a proper name interpretation); when the word was applied to two animals, they generalized it to a new animal with the property (consistent with an adjective or a restricted count noun interpretation). Range-of-reference information thus provided toddlers with a default cue to the meaning (and associated lexical class) of a novel word.

Children's use of information in word learning

Whenever children hear a novel word, the context supplies information about its meaning. One way children may cope with so much information is to use whatever seems to make sense, given their prior knowledge and beliefs, while ignoring or quickly forgetting the rest. This work examined if and how children's beliefs about word meanings may affect their use of contrastive linguistic information in the input in word learning. In Study 1, some 3- and 4-year-olds were introduced to a novel material or shape name and heard it contrasted with familiar words. Others merely heard the novel word used for referring to an object. These children were then tested to determine what they had learned about their new word meaning. In Study 2, another group of 3- and 4-year-olds were asked to name the materials and shapes used for introducing these novel terms. Children made use of linguistic contrast only in some situations. They benefited more when the novel term did not overlap much in denotation with any terms commonly known by 3- and 4-year-olds. These results suggest that children can use information in the input very efficiently in learning a term for an as-yet-unnamed category, but not in learning a term similar in denotation to a word they already know. Thus, the results are consistent with the claim that children believe every word has a unique denotation.