What the [beep]? Six-month-olds link novel communicative signals to meaning

Abstract

Over the first year, infants tune in to the signals of their native language and begin to link them to meaning. Here, we ask whether infants, like adults, can also infer the communicative function of otherwise arbitrary signals (here, tone sequences) and link these to meaning as well. We examined 6-month-olds’ object categorization in the context of sine-wave tones, a signal that fails to support categorization at any point during their first year. However, before the categorization task, we exposed infants to tones in one of two vignettes. In one, the tones were produced by an actor in a rich communicative exchange; in the other, infants heard the very same tones, but these were uncoupled from the actors’ activity. Infants exposed to the communicative vignette successfully formed object categories in the subsequent test; those exposed to the non-communicative vignette failed, performing identically to infants with no prior exposure to this novel signal. This reveals in 6-month-old infants a remarkable flexibility in identifying which signals in the ambient environment are communicative and in linking these signals to core cognitive capacities including categorization.

Listening to the calls of the wild: The role of experience in linking language and cognition in young infants

“…The evidence from Ferguson and Waxman (2016), considered in conjunction with the new evidence reported here, suggests that there may be (at least) two routes by which infants establish links between signals and meaning. For signals that are part of infants’ initial template (e.g., human and nonhuman primate vocalizations), exposure alone appears to be sufficient to maintain or reinstate the link at 6 or 7 months of age.…”

“…Recent developmental evidence has identified one such route (Ferguson & Waxman, 2016). Using the same categorization task as we used here, Ferguson and Waxman (2016) focused on 6-month-old infants’ responses to sine wave tone sequences.…”

“…Using the same categorization task as we used here, Ferguson and Waxman (2016) focused on 6-month-old infants’ responses to sine wave tone sequences. Sine wave tone sequences, like backward speech, are an otherwise arbitrary signal; indeed, they consistently fail to promote object categorization at any point in the first year of life (Ferry et al, 2010; Fulkerson & Waxman, 2007).…”

“…Sine wave tone sequences, like backward speech, are an otherwise arbitrary signal; indeed, they consistently fail to promote object categorization at any point in the first year of life (Ferry et al, 2010; Fulkerson & Waxman, 2007). As in the experiments reported here, Ferguson and Waxman (2016) included an exposure phase during which infants listened to tone sequences before participating in the categorization task itself. But in sharp contrast to the current experiments, during the exposure phase the tone sequences were incorporated into a rich social communicative context.…”

Naming influences 9-month-olds’ identification of discrete categories along a perceptual continuum

“…To do so, we move beyond the novelty preference design to trace the role of naming on infants’ categorization of objects along a perceptual continuum. We focus on 9-month-old infants because although they do not yet produce category names on their own, there is evidence that they are sensitive to the distinct conceptual consequences of naming objects with the same vs different names (Althaus & Westerman, 2016; Dewar & Xu, 2007; Ferguson & Waxman, 2016; Waxman & Braun, 2005). We ask whether naming influences not only the number of object categories infants form along the continuum, but also, whether category membership is perceived as discrete or as a more continuous factor.…”