Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:44:43.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Korean- and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2008

JANE B. CHILDERS  and
JAE H. PAIK
JANE B. CHILDERS*
Affiliation:
Trinity University
JAE H. PAIK
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
*
Address for correspondence: Jane B. Childers, Trinity University, Department of Psychology, One Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212. Email: [email protected]. Tel: 210-999-8327. Fax: 210-999-8386.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines children's attention to cross-situational information during word learning. Korean-speaking children in Korea and English-speaking children in the US were taught four nonce words that referred to novel actions. For each word, children saw four related events: half were shown events that were very similar (Close comparisons), half were shown events that were not as similar (Far comparisons). The prediction was that children would compare events to each other and thus be influenced by the events shown. In addition, children in these language groups could be influenced differently as their verb systems differ. Although some differences were found across language, children in both languages were influenced by the type of events shown, suggesting that they are using a comparison process. Thus, this study provides evidence for comparison, a new mechanism to describe how children learn new action words, and demonstrates that this process could apply across languages.

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 201 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

[*]

Funding was provided by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (1R15 HD044447-01) to the first author. Portions of this research were presented at the 2005 meeting of the Cognitive Development Society, San Diego, CA. We wish to thank Jennifer Roscetti and M. Elaine Heard for their assistance in stimuli creation and Megan Broughan, Laura Myers, Jessica Matley, Erin Mulvey, Kolette Ring, Amanda Snook, Emily Stanley, Sylvia Suciu, Margot Tarrillion and Valerie Torrez for assistance in data collection and coding. We also thank the parents and children who participated in the study, and the teachers and directors at four public preschools in Seoul, Korea and the University Presbyterian Church Children's Center in San Antonio, TX. We are extremely grateful to Soonja Choi, Department of Linguistics and Asian/Middle-Eastern Languages, San Diego State University, for her helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. We also thank David Silva, Don Burquest, Yujeong Choi and Wenhua Jin in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Texas at Arlington, for their assistance with the linguistic description of the Korean sentences.

References

REFERENCES

Au, T. K., Dapretto, M. & Song, Y. (1994). Input vs. constraints: Early word acquisition n Korean and English. Journal of Child Language 33, 567–82.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. D. (1983). The early acquisition and development of the meanings of action-related words. In Seiler, T. B. and Wannenmancher, W. (eds), Concept development and the development of word meaning, 191–209. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrend, D. A. (1990). The development of verb concepts: Children's use of verbs to label familiar and novel events. Child Development 61, 681–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrend, D. (1995). Processes involved in the initial mapping of verb meanings. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (eds), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 251–73. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1985). Beyond communicative adequacy: From piecemeal knowledge to an integrated system in the child's acquisition of language. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's Language, Vol. 5, 369–98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., de León, L. & Choi, S. (1995). Verbs, particles, and spatial semantics: Learning to talk about spatial actions in typologically different languages. In Clark, E. V. (ed.), The Proceedings of the 27th Annual Child Language Research Forum, 101–110. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B. (2005). Is comparison useful for verb learning? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B. (in press). The structural alignment and comparison of events in verb acquisition. In Sloutsky, V. S., Love, B. C. & McRae, K. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (1997). Language-specific input and early semantic development: Evidence from children learning Korean. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 5: Expanding the contexts, 41–133. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2000). Caregiver input in English and Korean: Use of nouns and verbs in book-reading and toy-play contexts. Journal of Child Language 27, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S. & Gopnik, A. (1995). Early acquisition of verbs in Korean: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language 22, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S. & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 28, 125–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, J. N. & Farrar, M. J. (1995). Learning to represent word meaning: What initial training events reveal about children's developing action verb concepts. Cognitive Development 10, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. N. & Poulin-Dubois, D. (1997). Representational change in young children's understanding of familiar verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 24, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–70.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds), Similarity and analogical reasoning, 199–241. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (2002). Why we're so smart: Language and thought in early development. Paper presented at the 32nd annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 7–9 June, 2002.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science 5, 152–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52 (1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. & Namy, L. (2000). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. & Gleitman, H. (1992). A picture is worth a thousand words, but that's the problem: The role of syntax in vocabulary acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41, 153–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, M., Gentner, D. & Uchida, N. (1994). Children's theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development 9, 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., Haryu, E. & Okada, H. (2005). Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children? Child Development 76, 340–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, M., McGregor, K. K. & Thompson, C. K. (2000). Early lexical development in English- and Korean-speaking children: Language-general and language-specific patterns. Journal of Child Language 27, 225–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotovsky, L. & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development 67, 2797–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, J. & Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition and Development 2, 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1990). Are actions to verbs as objects are to nouns? On the differential semantic bases of form, class, category. Linguistics 28, 1351–79.Google Scholar
Markman, A. & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25, 431–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31, 838–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Namy, L. L. & Gentner, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olguin, R. & Tomasello, M. (1993). Twenty-five-month-old children do not have a grammatical category of verb. Cognitive Development 8, 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paik, J. H. & Mix, K. S. (2006). Preschooler's use of surface similarity in object comparisons: Taking context into account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 95, 194–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandhofer, C. M., Smith, L. B. & Luo, J. (2000). Counting nouns and verbs in the input: Differential frequencies, different kinds of learning. Journal of Child Language 27, 561–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidak, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 62, 626–33.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, J. P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Volume 4, 181–238. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardif, T., Shatz, M. & Naigles, L. (1997). Caregiver speech and children's use of nouns versus verbs: A comparison of English, Italian and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 24, 535–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2002). Going, going, gone: The acquisition of the verb ‘go’. Journal of Child Language 29, 783–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1995). Pragmatic contexts for early verb learning. In Tomasello, M. and Merriman, W. E. (eds), Beyond Names for Things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 115–46. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R. & Klibanoff, R. S. (2000). The role of comparison in the extension of novel adjectives. Developmental Psychology 36, 571–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiebe, S. A. & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Interference from additional props in an elicited imitation task: When in sight, firmly in mind. Journal of Cognition and Development 6, 325–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar