Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T16:37:23.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fourteen-month-olds’ decontextualized understanding of words for absent objects*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2016

KRISTI HENDRICKSON  and
MEGHA SUNDARA
KRISTI HENDRICKSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, and Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego
MEGHA SUNDARA*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California Los Angeles
*
Addresses for correspondence: Kristi Hendrickson. e-mail: krhendricson@ucsd.edu; Megha Sundara. e-mail: megha.sundara@humnet.ucla.edu.
Addresses for correspondence: Kristi Hendrickson. e-mail: krhendricson@ucsd.edu; Megha Sundara. e-mail: megha.sundara@humnet.ucla.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The majority of research examining infants’ decontextualized word knowledge comes from studies in which words and pictures are presented simultaneously. However, comprehending utterances about unseen objects is a hallmark of language. Do infants demonstrate decontextualized absent object knowledge early in the second year of life? Further, to what extent do words evoke strictly prototypical representations of absent objects? To investigate these questions we analyzed 14-month-olds’ comprehension of labels for absent entities without contextual support. In a novel, auditory–visual priming paradigm, infants heard passages containing two target words and then saw four animations – two that matched the meaning of the target words and two they had not heard in the passages. We found that by age 1;2, spoken words evoke prototypical representations of absent entities. Additionally, our findings demonstrate a promising new method for exploring absent object comprehension in infants.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 239 - 254
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by NSF BCS-0951639 to MS.

References

REFERENCES

Antos, S. J. (1979). Processing facilitation in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5(3), 527–45.Google Scholar
Arias-Trejo, N. & Plunkett, K. (2009). Lexical-semantic priming effects in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 3633–47.Google Scholar
Arias-Trejo, N. & Plunkett, K. (2013). What's in a link: associative and taxonomic priming effects in the infant lexicon. Cognition 128(2), 214–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, E. & Swingley, D. (2012). At 6–9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(9), 3253–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2006). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3·14) [Computer program]. Retrieved 2 May 2006, from <http://www.praat.org/>..>Google Scholar
Bosch, L. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy 2(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Carey, S. & Bartlett, E. J. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language 15, 17–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. B., Atkinson, D. J. & Chaput, H. H. (2004). Habit X: a new program for obtaining and organizing data in infant perception and cognition studies (Version 1.0). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: user's guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A. & Westbury, C. (2009). ERP measures of partial semantic knowledge: left temporal indices of skill differences and lexical quality. Biological Psychology 80(1), 130–47.Google Scholar
Gallerani, C. M., Saylor, M. M. & Adwar, S. (2009). Mother–infant conversation about absent things. Language Learning and Development 5(4), 282–93.Google Scholar
Ganea, P. A. (2005). Contextual factors affect absent reference comprehension in 14-month-olds. Child Development 76(5), 989–98.Google Scholar
Ganea, P. A. & Harris, P. L. (2013). Early limits on the verbal updating of an object's location. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganea, P. A. & Saylor, M. M. (2013). Talking about the near and dear: infants’ comprehension of displaced speech. Developmental Psychology 49(7), 1299–307.Google Scholar
Ganea, P. A., Shutts, K., Spelke, E. S. & DeLoache, J. S. (2007). Thinking of things unseen: infants’ use of language to update mental representations. Psychological Science 18(8), 734–9.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1982). The role of perceived variability in the transition to language. Journal of Child Language 9, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, K. & Friend, M. (2013) . Quantifying the relationship between infants’ haptic and visual response to word-object pairings. In Baiz, S., Goldman, N. & Hawkins, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 37.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, K., Mitsven, S., Poulin-Dubois, D., Zesiger, P. & Friend, M. (2015). Looking and touching: what extant approaches reveal about the structure of early word knowledge. Developmental Science 18, 723–35.Google Scholar
Holcomb, P. J. & Neville, H. J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: a comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes 5(4), 281–312.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. (1974). The origins of language comprehension. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology (pp. 331–68) . Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology 29(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Kucker, S. C., McMurray, B. & Samuelson, L. K. (2015). Slowing down fast mapping: redefining the dynamics of word learning. Child Development Perspectives 9(2), 74–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liszkowski, U., Schäfer, M., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Prelinguistic infants, but not chimpanzees, communicate about absent entities. Psychological Science 20(5), 654–60.Google Scholar
Luche, C. D., Durrant, S., Floccia, C. & Plunkett, K. (2014). Implicit meaning in 18-month-old toddlers. Developmental Science 17(6), 948–55.Google Scholar
McMurray, B. (2007). Defusing the childhood vocabulary explosion. Science 317(5838), 631–631.Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S. & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review 119(4), 831–77.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. P. (1992). Priming and constraints it places on theories of memory and retrieval. Psychological Review 99(4), 650–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K. & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24(3), 558–72.Google Scholar
Meints, K., Plunkett, K. & Harris, P. L. (1999). When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of typicality in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35(4), 1072–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, D. E. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90(2), 227–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munakata, Y. (2001). Graded representations in behavioral dissociations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(7), 309–15.Google Scholar
Osina, M. A., Saylor, M. M. & Ganea, P. A. (2013). When familiar is not better: 12-month-old infants respond to talk about absent objects. Developmental Psychology 49(1), 138.Google Scholar
Saylor, M. M. (2004). 12- and 16-month-old infants recognize properties of mentioned absent things. Developmental Science 7, 599–611.Google Scholar
Saylor, M. M. & Baldwin, D. A. (2004). Discussing those not present: comprehension of references to absent caregivers. Journal of Child Language 31(3), 537–60.Google Scholar
Shinskey, J. L. & Munakata, Y. (2005). Familiarity breeds searching: infants reverse their novelty preferences when reaching for hidden objects. Psychological Science 16(8), 596–600.Google Scholar
Stein, J. M. & Shore, W. J. (2012). What do we know when we claim to know nothing? Partial knowledge of word meanings may be ontological, but not hierarchical. Language and Cognition 4(3), 144–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styles, S. J. & Plunkett, K. (2009). How do infants build a semantic system? Language and Cognition. Language and Cognition 1(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Sundara, M. & Scutellaro, A. (2011). Rhythmic distance between languages affects the development of speech perception in bilingual infants. Journal of Phonetics 39(4), 505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veneziano, E. & Sinclair, H. (1995). Functional changes in early child language: the appearance of references to the past and of explanations. Journal of Child Language 22(3), 557–81.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Cohen, L. B., Lloyd, V. L., Casasola, M. & Stager, C. L. (1998). Acquisition of word–object associations by 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology 34(6), 1289–309.Google Scholar
Yu, C. (2008). A statistical associative account of vocabulary growth in early word learning. Language Learning and Development 4(1), 32–62.Google Scholar
Yurovsky, D., Fricker, D., Yu, C. & Smith, L. B. (2014). The role of partial knowledge in statistical word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar