1. Foundations of Verb Learning: Labels Promote Action Category Formation Shannon M. Pruden & Kathy Hirsh-Pasek Temple University

2. Early Verb Learning: The Research  Verbs are difficult to learn (Gentner, 1982; Gillette, et al., 1999; Imai et al., 2003; Meyer et al., 2003).  Paradox: Verbs appear in children’s earliest vocabularies (Choi, 1998; Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Fenson, et al., 1994; Nelson, 1989; Tardif, 1996).  Why are verbs difficult to learn?

3. Prerequisites for Learning Verbs 1.The conceptualization of actions and events. 2.The mapping of words to these actions and events. Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001 1.Pay attention to actions. 2.Form categories of these actions. 3.Map words to these actions. Golinkoff et al., 2002

4. Why are Verbs Difficult to Learn? A mapping problem? OR Lack of conceptual knowledge?

5. Most of what has been done on verbs…  Early production of relational terms  Choi & Bowerman, 1991  Choi & Gopnik, 1995  Tardif, 1996  Mapping relational terms onto actions and events  Choi, et al., 1999  Maguire, et al., 2003  Naigles, 1996 Little research addresses the question of whether infants have the conceptual knowledge needed to learn verbs.

6. Prerequisites for Learning Verbs 1.The conceptualization of actions and events. 2.The mapping of words to these actions and events. Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001 1.Pay attention to actions. 2.Form categories of these actions. 3.Map words to these actions. Golinkoff et al., 2002

7. Conceptual Prerequisites in Place? Some speculate that conceptual prerequisites are in place at an early age.  “relations…are, I suspect, perceived quite early…it is not perceiving relations but packaging and lexicalizing them that is difficult” (Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001, p.326)  “vocabulary acquisition in the real case may reduce mainly to a mapping problem” (Snedeker & Gleitman, 2004, p. 280)  “the young child’s conceptual repertoire may be rich and varied enough from the start…” (Snedeker & Gleitman, 2004, p. 261).

8. Semantic Components that Relational Terms Encode Spatial Expressions  Containment  Support  Degree of Fit Motion Verbs  Path  Manner  Result Languages package these components in different ways Slobin, 2001; Talmy, 1985

9. Semantic Components that Relational Terms Encode Spatial Expressions  Containment  Support  Degree of Fit Motion Verbs  Path  Manner  Result

10. Path and Manner in Motion Verbs  Focus on path and manner: (1) Universally codified in languages across world. Jackendoff, 1983; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 1985 (2) They are treated differently across languages. Slobin, 2001; Talmy, 1985  English - Manner encoded in verb; path encoded in preposition.  Spanish - Path encoded in verb; manner encoded in adverb (optionally). (3) Path may be conceptual primitive needed for learning motion verbs. Mandler, 2004

11. Early Event Perception Are infants able to” decompose scenes into constituent parts relevant to linguistic expressions in language?” (Clark, 2003, p. 168)

12. Discriminating Path and Manner  14-month-olds discriminate path and manner.  Low vocab. infants:more attention to changes in path  High vocab. infants: more attention to changes in manner  7-month-olds discriminate path and manner Pulverman et al. (2003; 2004)  10-month-olds discriminate path and manner  More naturalistic events with humans. Casasola, Hohenstein, & Naigles (2003)

13. Categorization of Actions Can infants form categories of actions?  “words…refer to categories of objects and events, or properties of these things.” Oakes & Rakison (2003)  Therefore, motion verbs label categories of actions and events rather than single events.

14. For example, “running” ·“Running” is considered the same action whether performed by Carl Lewis or Grandma.

15. Finding the Invariant Path and Manner in Motion Events  Can infants abstract the invariant action within a motion event? Pruden, et al. (2004)  Infants (7 - 15 months) familiarized to events from the same category.  Same path across multiple exemplars of manner (Path Study)  Same manner across multiple exemplars of path (Manner Study)

16. Path Study: Familiarization Trials  Four familiarization trials  Importantly - no linguistic stimuli accompanied events  Vary manner across same path  Example, “Around” Bend Around Twist Around Spin Around Toe Touch Around

17. Path Study: Test Trials “Flap Around” Novel Manner, Familiar Path In-category event “Flap Past” Novel Manner, Novel Path Out-of-category event

18. Results

19. Summary: Finding the Invariant Action  10-month-olds were able to find invariant path across varying manners.  13-month-olds were able to find invariant manner across varying paths.  Path to manner developmental progression  There is a group of infant in both studies who do not find the invariant action. ·7- to 9-month-olds

20. Conceptual prerequisites to learn verbs may be in place early in life The next step in learning verbs… Adding language to non-verbal scene

21. What effect might language have on the processing of these non-linguistic scenes?

22. Two Possibilities  Adding language increases complexity of the task and may hinder category formation (Stager & Werker, 1997)  Adding language facilitates category formation (Balaban & Waxman, 1997; Waxman & Markow, 1995) To our knowledge, only one study has added language to an event categorization task…

23. Spatial Categorization and Labels  10- to 18-month-olds: no abstract spatial category of “on” (Casasola & Cohen, 2002)  Can a linguistic label facilitate infants’ spatial categorization of support relations? (Casasola, 2005) Linguistic label helped infants form an abstract category of “on” Loose-fit support Tight-fit support “ON”

24. Expanding on Casasola… 1.Exploring categorization of events based on path and manner. 2.Testing pre-verbal infants

25. The Present Studies

26. Our Paradigm  Preferential Looking Paradigm: forced-choice split-screen  (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996)  Dependent Variable: Looking Time

27. Novel, easily manipulated and controlled stimuli

28. Stimuli Across Studies 6 Paths  Over  Under  Past  Around  Behind  In Front 6 Manners  Flap  Spin  Twist  Side Bend  Bend Forward  Toe-Touch

29. General Method  Introduction  Salience Trials  Four Familiarization Trials  Test Trials  All trials are 12 s

30. Introduction Trial ·Purpose: To ensure infants look to both sides

31. 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.

32. Familiarization Trials  Four exemplars of the category are shown.  Trials are separated by attention-getter:  Picture of a baby  Accompanied by music

33. Test Trials  Test trials  Two clips shown simultaneously  In-category event (familiar exemplar)  Out-of-category event (novel exemplar)  Predictions  Infants who can find the invariant action will show a preference for one of these clips.

34. Predictions No salience preference for test clips will be found Infants will show increased attention during familiarization  Labels heighten attention (ala. Baldwin & Markman, 1989 with objects) Labeling will help infants abstract the invariant path or manner

35. Study 1: Do Labels Help Infants Abstract the Invariant Path?  24 7- to 9-month-olds  Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.  All infants full-term births.  Equal numbers of males and females. Participants

36. Familiarization Trials  Four familiarization trials  Same stimuli/design as Pruden et al. (2004)  Vary manner across same path  Example, “Under”  During each familiarization trial, they hear novel verb “javing” 4 times. Spin under Toe touch under Side bend under Flap under

37. Salience/Test Trials Starry “Twist Under” Novel Manner, Familiar Path In-category event Starry “Twist Over” Novel Manner, Novel Path Out-of-category event

38. 8-month-old infant

39. Results: Salience Preference

40. Results: Enhanced Attention

41. Results: Finding the Invariant Path

42. Summary: Path Study Our Predictions No Salience Preference Increased attention during familiarization Label facilitates finding the invariant path Our Results No Salience Preference 7No increase in attention during familiarization Label facilitates finding the invariant path

43. Study 2: Do Labels Help Infants Abstract the Invariant Manner?  24 7- to 9-month-olds  Mono-lingual English-speaking homes.  All infants full-term births.  Equal numbers of males and females. Participants

44. Familiarization Trials  Four familiarization trials  Same stimuli/design as Pruden et al. (2004)  Vary path across same manner  Example, “Twist”  During each familiarization trial, they hear novel verb “javing” 4 times. Twist around Twist in frontTwist over Twist Past

45. Salience/Test Trials “Twist Under” Familiar Manner, Novel Path In-category event “Toe Touch Under” Novel Manner, Novel Path Out-of-category event

46. Results: Salience Preference

47. Results: Enhanced Attention

48. Results: Finding the Invariant Manner

49. Summary: Manner Study Our Predictions No Salience Preference Increased attention during familiarization Label facilitates finding the invariant manner Our Results No Salience Preference Increased attention during familiarization 7Label provides no facilitative effect in finding invariant manner

50. What does all of this mean?  These studies show Infants can abstract the invariant actions that are encoded in relational terms, like motion verbs Labels help infants find invariant actions  Developmental Progression Path first, then manner

51. What are labels doing?  Auditory stimulation enhances attention to objects (Baldwin & Markman, 1989; Roberts & Jacob, 1991)  Labels invite categorization (Balaban & Waxman, 1997; Waxman & Markow, 1995)  Labels highlight similarities and promote comparison (Gentner & Namy, 1999; Lowenstein & Gentner, 2005)  Is there anything special about a label? Tone study Complex musical melodies study

52. Future Studies: Role of Comparison  Comparison helpful in categorization, learning new adjectives and verbs.  (Childers, in press; Gentner & Namy, 2000; Oakes & Ribar, 2004; Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000)  Active comparison of actions - promote abstraction of invariant actions?  Current Studies  Sequential familiarization  Next Study  Simultaneous familiarization

53. Future Studies - Trends  Path then manner developmental trend Would 10- to 12-month-olds use a label to find the invariant manner? Would we see cross-linguistic differences in our studies? 14- to 17-month-old Spanish-speaking infants show same developmental pattern as English-speaking infants in discrimination task. What about abstracting the invariant action?

54. Future Studies: Individual Differences Individual differences in performance  Some children did not show a novelty preference  Do individual differences predict later language development?

55. Acknowledgements… Thanks to all the parents and children who participated in these studies at the Temple Infant Lab. Meredith Jones Natalie Sheridan Gwen Albertson Dr. Roberta Golinkoff

56. QUESTIONS? For information contact: Shannon Pruden spruden@temple.edu Visit my website at: astro.temple.edu/~spruden