foundations of verb learning: infants categorize path and manner in motion events shannon m. pruden,...

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.

QUESTIONS???

Correspondence: Shannon Pruden (email: spruden@temple.edu)