Intersecting Constraints on Label Learning: Effects of Age, Label Properties, and Referential Context

Estes, Katharine Graf; Antovich, Dylan; Hay, Jessica F.

doi:10.1080/15248372.2018.1523172

Cited by 4 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They did not, however, learn to associate non-words, such as a handclap, to objects. This pattern of results is similar to constraints observed in monolinguals in this age range (Graf Estes et al, 2018).…”

Section: Research Highlightssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…They did not, however, learn to associate non‐words, such as a handclap, to objects. This pattern of results is similar to constraints observed in monolinguals in this age range (Graf Estes et al, ). The transitions in associating labels and objects in the latter half of the second year of life is not surprising given rapid increases in both vocabulary production and comprehension at this age.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Unlike 14‐month‐olds, they did not associate non‐word labels with objects and only applied labels when they met typical language‐specific properties of the language(s) the infants were learning. Further, label learning was maximized for 18‐to 19‐month‐olds when it occurred in a social interaction that included joint attention (Graf Estes et al, ). Finally, LaTourette and Waxman () demonstrated that providing even a few labels enhanced categorization by 2‐year‐olds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, 12‐month‐olds will map non‐verbal mouth noises (e.g., “psst”) to objects using an interactive preferential looking paradigm (Hollich, Golinkoff, & Hirsh‐Pasek, ). Between 12 and 24 months, infants begin to limit what they will accept as a symbol‐object pairing; by 2 years, they will only accept words and no longer map non‐symbolic sounds or gestures to objects (e.g., Graf Estes, Antovich, & Hay, ; Graham & Kilbreath, ; Namy & Waxman, ). For example, Graf Estes et al () found that 18‐ to 19‐month‐old infants became more constrained in label learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Between 12 and 24 months, infants begin to limit what they will accept as a symbol‐object pairing; by 2 years, they will only accept words and no longer map non‐symbolic sounds or gestures to objects (e.g., Graf Estes, Antovich, & Hay, ; Graham & Kilbreath, ; Namy & Waxman, ). For example, Graf Estes et al () found that 18‐ to 19‐month‐old infants became more constrained in label learning. Unlike 14‐month‐olds, they did not associate non‐word labels with objects and only applied labels when they met typical language‐specific properties of the language(s) the infants were learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Actions speak louder than words: Differences in memory flexibility between monolingual and bilingual 18‐month‐olds

Barr

Rusnak

Brito

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bilingual infants from 6‐ to 24‐months of age are more likely to generalize, flexibly reproducing actions on novel objects significantly more often than age‐matched monolingual infants are. In the current study, we examine whether the addition of novel verbal labels enhances memory generalization in a perceptually complex imitation task. We hypothesized that labels would provide an additional retrieval cue and aid memory generalization for bilingual infants. Specifically, we hypothesized that bilinguals might be more likely than monolinguals to map multiple perceptual features onto a novel label and therefore show enhanced generalization. Eighty‐seven 18‐month‐old monolingual and bilingual infants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions or a baseline control condition. In the experimental conditions, either no label or a novel label was added during demonstration and again at the beginning of the test session. After a 24‐hr delay, infants were tested with the same stimulus set to test cued recall and with a perceptually different but functionally equivalent stimulus set to test memory generalization. Bilinguals performed significantly above baseline on both cued recall and memory generalization in both experimental conditions, whereas monolinguals performed significantly above baseline only on cued recall in both experimental conditions. These findings show a difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in memory generalization and suggest that generalization differences between groups may arise from visual perceptual processing rather than linguistic processing. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://youtu.be/yXB4pM3fF2k

show abstract

Section: Research Highlightssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Actions speak louder than words: Differences in memory flexibility between monolingual and bilingual 18‐month‐olds

Barr

Rusnak

Brito

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mapping non-native pitch contours to meaning: Perceptual and experiential factors

Hay

Cannistraci

Zhao

2019

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infants show interesting patterns of flexibility and constraint early in word learning. Here, we explore perceptual and experiential factors that drive associative learning of labels that differ in pitch contour. Contrary to the salience hypothesis proposed in Experiment 1, English-learning 14month-olds failed to map acoustically distinctive level and dipping labels to novel referents, even though they discriminated the labels when no potential referents were present. Conversely, infants readily mapped the less distinctive rising and dipping labels. In Experiment 2, we found that the degree of pitch variation in labels also does not account for learning. Instead, English-learning infants only learned if one of the labels had a rising pitch contour. We argue that experience with hearing and/or producing native language prosody may lead infants to initially over-interpret the role rising pitch plays in differentiating words. Together, our findings suggest that multiple factors contribute to whether specific acoustic forms will function as candidate object labels.

show abstract

Selectivity in bilingual nonspeech label learning

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates selectivity in word learning for bilingual infants. Previous work demonstrated that bilingual infants show greater openness to non-native language sounds in object labels than monolinguals (Hay et al., 2015; Singh, 2018). It remains unclear whether bilingual openness extends to nonspeech sounds. We presented 14- and 19-month-old bilinguals with object labels consisting of nonspeech tones. Monolinguals recently displayed learning of the same labels at 14 months, but not 19 months (Graf Estes et al., 2018). In contrast, bilinguals failed to learn the labels. We propose that hearing phonological variation across two languages helps bilinguals reject nonspeech word forms.

show abstract

Intersecting Constraints on Label Learning: Effects of Age, Label Properties, and Referential Context

Cited by 4 publications

References 43 publications

Actions speak louder than words: Differences in memory flexibility between monolingual and bilingual 18‐month‐olds

Actions speak louder than words: Differences in memory flexibility between monolingual and bilingual 18‐month‐olds

Mapping non-native pitch contours to meaning: Perceptual and experiential factors

Selectivity in bilingual nonspeech label learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About