1. Relational Language Supports Relational Cognition Dedre Gentner Northwestern University http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/gentner/ Research supported NSF SLC Grant SBE-0541957, the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) and by NSF – ROLE award number 21002/REC-0087516

2. Language as Tool Kit Relational Language and Relational Cognition Relational reasoning is central in higher-order cognition But relations are not obvious in the world So how do children acquire the stock of relations needed to understand and reason about the world? Hypothesis: Relational language fosters the development of accessible relational structure and is thus central to the development of analogy (Gentner, 2003)

3. Does the language we speak influence the way we think? Two traditions in Cognitive Science Sapir-Whorf hypothesis "We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language... (Whorf, 1956: 213) Vygotsky: Inner Speech “…learning to direct one's own mental processes with the aid of words or signs is an integral part of the process of concept formation." (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 59)

4. Development of Analogy: Relational Shift Young children have difficulty perceiving relational similarities –Initial focus on object similarities (Gentner, Halford) Relational Correspondence Object Match

5. Relational Correspondence Object Match “on” “in” “under” Prior studies: English-speaking children who are given spatial relational language perform better on spatial analogy task than matched controls (Loewenstein & Gentner (Cognitive Psychology, 2005)

6. Plan Studies that vary presence of overt spatial language with English-speaking children (Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005) Studies of homesigners and hearing children in Turkey using the same task (Gentner, Ozurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli, in preparation)

7. Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 Claim: Spatial Language  Relational Encoding  Analogical Mapping Predictions: 1.Overt spatial language will facilitate spatial encoding and mapping for young children 2.Older children will no longer need overt language, because they already have internalized spatial language 3.However, language benefits will again appear for older children if the task is made more difficult 4.Language benefits derive from the semantics of the terms 5.Language influences the spatial representation; it is not merely a transient attentional effect so benefits will be retained over time

8. Spatial Mapping Task: Neutral Version For 6 trials (2/location): Baseline: “I’m putting it here” Language: “I’m putting it on/in/under the box” Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 Hiding BoxFinding Box “the winner”

9. Search Trials 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 On, In, Under Baseline 3;8 N=20 4;1 N=20 * Proportion Correct Results an early advantage of relational language which disappears with age On, In, Under

10. Prediction: Language benefits will be seen for older children on this difficult task For 6 trials (2/location): Baseline: “I’m putting it here” Language: “I’m putting it on/in/under the box” Hiding BoxFinding Box “the winner” Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 Spatial Mapping: Cross-mapped task

11. Proportion Correct 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 3;8 yrs4;1 yrs N=20 4;7 yrs N=20 5;2 yrs N=20 On, In, Under Baseline * * On, In, Under Young children fail on a difficult task Older children show benefits of overt relational language

12. Language benefits depend on the semantics of the terms: top middle bottom ON IN UNDER TOP MIDDLE BOTTOM Monotonic Height Increase On, In, Under Local Figure-ground Relations Top, Middle, Bottom Connected System of Relations

13. Difficult Cross-Mapping Relational Match with Competing Object Match Neutral Objects Relational Match Only Spatial Language and Spatial Mapping

14. Language benefits are retained over time 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 3;8 N=30 4;1 N=30 Proportion Correct Search Trials Baseline TMB * 2 days later Retention test : Day 1. Standard task Day 2. Two days later, “same game” -- No spatial language -- Both groups get same procedure

15. What about children who lack spatial language? Deaf children of hearing parents in Turkey who have not been taught sign language Turkish hearing children (matched on cognitive task) Gentner, Ozyurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli Background: Informally, the deaf children appear to use few if any spatial terms. In contrast, hearing Turkish children appear to use both spatial nouns and spatial case markers (postpositions)

16. Plan 1. Spatial language elicitation task given to deaf children and hearing children 2. Spatial analogy task Deaf and hearing children matched on a separate cognitive task Spatial analogy task given to both groups 1. neutral task 2. cross-mapping task Gentner, Ozyurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli

17. Spatial Language Elicitation Task Children were shown short videotaped events 24 simple motion events with toys. In each event, a figure moves toward a goal object and ends {near, behind on top of, or in} the goal obj Transitive and intransitive: a boy moves next to a girl a baby crawls to a cat a man gives a flower to a woman a motorcyclist gets on top of a motorcycle After each clip, the child was asked to describe what happened either in speech (hearing chidren) or in their own homesign (deaf children) Children were given a page showing the characters in action to help them describe the event Gentner, Ozyurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli

18. Ozyurek, Gentner, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli CODING HEARING CHILDREN: Case Markers: e.g., from / to / towards Spatial Nouns: e.g., near /on top/ over/ behind/ inside ottobus kiz-a gitti BUSGIRL-TOWENT ottobus kizinyanin-a gitti BUSGIRLNEXT-TOWENT DEAF CHILDREN: points and actions points to goals actions (traces of paths) two-handed gestures Case Markers: a point made NEXT TO, ON, UNDER, etc., an object Spatial Nouns : two-handed gesture,: e.g., one hand ON TOP OF the other, one hand IN the other

19. Children's Descriptions of Spatial Vignettes Gentner, Ozyurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli, in preparation 0.920.96 Proportion of vignettes with one or more action verbs 2.02.6Sentences per vignette 8.09.1Words per vignette DeafHearing 0.050.56 Proportion of sentences with case markers (over all sentences) * 0.00.26 Proportion of sentences with spatial nouns (over all sentences)

20. Summary and Predictions –The homesigners match hearing children in amount of action and object talk. –But they appear far less likely to develop and use terms that directly denote spatial relations. –If relational language is important in achiving a clear relational representation, then the homesigners may be less likely to form such delineated spatial representations –And therefore they may be less able to carry out spatial analogies as in the box-mapping task.

21. Gentner, Ozyurek, Goldin-Meadow & Gurcanli Relational Match Only Neutral Relational Match with Competing Object Match X-Map Participants: 13 Deaf Turkish children with invented Homesign systems 13 Hearing children (native speakers of Turkish) Deaf and hearing matched for performance on separate spatial cognitive task All children receive Neutral task followed by Cross-mapped task

22. Deaf and hearing children were matched on Levine et al. (1999) Spatial Task Example of a spatial manipulation task: Which figure can you make with the two top figures?

23. N=13 **t(24) = 2.785, p=.01 * t(24) = 2.115, p-.05 ** *

24. Difficult Cross-Mapping Relational Match with Competing Object Match Neutral Objects Relational Match Only Spatial Language and Spatial Mapping

25. Summary –Using language for spatial relations invites a correspondingly precise encoding of spatial relational structure –This relational encoding –promotes analogical mapping in young children –is semantically specific –is retained over time Deaf homesigners who lack clear spatial terms are disadvantaged in the spatial mapping task Language may not be required for the task; deaf children are able to learn the task, although at an older age. But language is an important facilitator These findings are consistent with the idea that relational language provides tools for encoding and using relations in the world

26. The End http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/gentner/