PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Acquisition

Announcements On-line Blackboard quiz for chapter 4 is now up. You may take it 5 times, top score counts I am pushing Exam 2 back a day. We will have the exam on Feb. 28. Language development section includes information from Chapter 3, pages Homework #2 due Feb. 21 st Nice video series (6 parts) on language acquisition Another nice clip about an experiment on infant language perceptionnice clip

Language Sponges Learning words General patterns and observations Sounds Meaning Proposed Strategies/constraints Learning Syntax Learning Morphology

Language Sponges About 3,000 new words per year, especially in the primary grades As many as 8 new words per day Production typically lags behind comprehension Learning words 12 ms first words 2 yrs 200 words 3 yrs1,000 words 6 yrs 15,000 words

Early word learning First words (Around months) Emergence of systematic, repeated productions of phonologically consistent forms 1 word stage typically lasts around 10 months Have learned first 50 words by 15 – 24 months Typically focused on the “here and now”

Early word learning 1-general names “dog” 2- specific names “mommy” 3-action words “bye-bye” 4-modifiers “red” 5-personal/social “yes, no, please” 6-functional “what” First words (Around months) Emergence of systematic, repeated productions of phonologically consistent forms

Early word learning Developed in systematic ways Not simply imitation, rather are creative Learned importance of consistency of names First words (Around months) Emergence of systematic, repeated productions of phonologically consistent forms Idiomorphs - personalized words “Adult words” - Typically context bound (relevant to the immediate environment) Important people, objects that move, objects that can be acted upon, familiar actions Nouns typically appear before verbs

Early speech production Transition to speech This is your fis? Your fis? Oh, your fish. No. … my fis. No. My fis! Yes, my fis.

Early speech production This is your fis? Transition to speech No, … my fis. Your fis.No, my fis. Oh, your fish.Yes, my fis. Can’t hear the difference? Rejects adult saying ‘fis’ Can’t produce the correct sounds? Sometimes, but evidence suggests not always the case More general process of simplification “frees up” resources for concentrating on other aspects of language learning

Early speech production Common Phonological processes Reduction Delete sounds from words (“da” for dog) Coalescence Combine different syllables into one syllable (“paf” for pacifier) Assimilation Change one sound into a similar sound within the word (“fweet” for sweet) Reduplication One syllable from a multi-syllabic word is repeated (“baba” for bottle) Transition to speech individual diffs, but some regularities

Indeterminacy: Frog Frog Frog? Green? Jumping? Ugly?

Indeterminacy: Frog Frog ????

Quine’s gavagai problem The problem of reference: A word may refer to a number of referents (real world objects) A single object or event has many objects, parts and features that can be referred to Frog Frog? Green? Ugly? Jumping?

Extensions of meaning Extension Finding the appropriate limits of the meaning of words Overextension Applying a word too broadly Mostly based on perceptual features (but other features too: sound, movement, size, texture extension) Very common in early word learning (Rescorla, /3 of first 75 words) Underextension Applying a word too narrowly e.g., “round” only for their ball Applying the words to referents

Extensions of meaning “tee”

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11

Extensions of meaning “tee” 1:9,11 1:10,18

Extensions of meaning “tee” “googie” 1:9,11 1:10,18 1:11,1

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh” 2:0,20 “biggie googie”

Extensions of meaning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh” 2:0,20 “biggie googie” One-word-per-referent heuristic If a new word comes in for a referent that is already named, replace it Exception to that was “horse,” but it only lasted a day here

Strategies for learning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh” 2:0,20 “biggie googie” Expansion and contraction can occur at the same time

Strategies for learning 1:9,11 1:10,18 “tee” 1:11,1 1:11,2 “googie” 1:11,24 1:11,25 “tee/hosh” 1:11,26 “hosh” 1:11,27 “pushi” 2:0,10 “moo-ka” “hosh” 2:0,20 “biggie googie” Child tries different things, if a word doesn’t work then they try something else e.g., hosh didn’t for for the large dog, switched to biggie doggie

Learning word meanings Fast mapping (Carey & Bartlett, 1978) Using the context to guess the meaning of a word Learning words “Please give me the chromium tray. Not the blue one, the chromium one.” All got the olive tray Several weeks later still had some of the meaning Only took one trial to establish the mapping video

Constraints on Word Learning Perhaps children are biased to entertain certain hypotheses about word meanings over others These first guesses save them from logical ambiguity Get them started out on the right track Mutual exclusivity constraint Object-scope (whole object) constraint Taxonomic constraint Learning words Cognitive Constraints (Markman, 1989)

Kids choose the corkscrew it is a less well known object for which they don’t yet have a label. ‘Show me a dax’: Mutual exclusivity constraint (Markam and Watchel 1988) Each object has one label & different words refer to separate, non-overlapping categories of objects An object can have only one label Strategies for learning

Object-scope (whole object) constraint Words refer to whole objects rather than to parts of objects Strategies for learning Dog

Taxonomic constraint Words refer to categories of similar objects Taxonomies (categories) rather than thematically related obejcts Strategies for learning ‘See this? Can you find another one?’ No Word condition Theme response Taxonomy response ‘Show me another lux’ ‘Here is a lux’ Word condition Theme response Taxonomy response

Shape versus function Strategies for learning Landau, Smith, & Jones, (1998) Category members often share shape and function. Do kids use both pieces of information? ‘Is this a rif/dax?’ ‘Here is a dax’ No Function Name Q condition Same shape Same function ‘Is this a rif/dax?’ ‘Here is a dax’ Function Name Q condition Same shape Same function ‘Can you mop-up water with tihis?’ ‘Here is a dax. A Dax can mop-up water’ Function Function Q condition Same shape Same function

Shape versus function Strategies for learning Landau, Smith, & Jones, (1998) Category members often share shape and function. Do kids use both pieces of information? For kids, shape seems to be more important than function for learning names. Adults focus more on function.

Problem with constraints Most of the constraints proposed apply only to object names. What about verbs? (Nelson 1988) There have been cases where children have been observed violating these constraints Using for example the word ‘car’ only to refer to ‘cars moving on the street from a certain location’ (Bloom 1973) The mutual exclusivity constraint would prevent children from learning subordinate and superordinate information (animal < dog < poodle)

The language explosion is not just the result of simple semantic development; the child is not just adding more words to his/her vocabulary. Child is mastering basic syntactic and morphological processes. Language explosion continues