Psy1306 Language and Thought Lecture 5 Spatial Language.

Psy1306 Psy1306 Language and ThoughtLanguage and Thought

Lecture 5Lecture 5

Spatial LanguageSpatial Language

Some Discussion Some Discussion PointsPoints

Language learningLanguage learning– Construction of new concepts?Construction of new concepts?

After learningAfter learning– Change in saliency of a Change in saliency of a

dimension/distinction?dimension/distinction? Second language learningSecond language learning

Language AcquisitionLanguage Acquisition

Successful comprehension of any intended Successful comprehension of any intended linguistic expression cannot be achieved without linguistic expression cannot be achieved without some commonality of thought.some commonality of thought.

Universalist view of word Universalist view of word learninglearning

Language has to Language has to be learnable.be learnable.

Languages are Languages are the way they are the way they are constrained by constrained by the cognitive the cognitive abilities of its abilities of its learners.learners.

Universalist view of Universalist view of word learningword learning Child has concept Child has concept

before the word before the word is learnedis learned

Word learning Word learning consists of consists of mapping mapping concepts to concepts to soundssounds

Concepts Concepts unchangedunchanged

Evidence for a Evidence for a universalist accountuniversalist account Pattern of word learning similar across languagesPattern of word learning similar across languages

– Common paths in vocabulary acquisition (e.g. Common paths in vocabulary acquisition (e.g. in-on-underin-on-under in spatial words)in spatial words)

– Some distinctions acquired early and with few exposures Some distinctions acquired early and with few exposures ((upup).).

Grammatical morphemes show limited Grammatical morphemes show limited crosslinguistic variation, suggesting innate crosslinguistic variation, suggesting innate limitationslimitations

Children’s errors are similar across languages Children’s errors are similar across languages suggesting common underlying conceptssuggesting common underlying concepts

Studies of infants indicate some concepts are Studies of infants indicate some concepts are available prelinguisticallyavailable prelinguistically

Ring ON Pole

Cup ON Saucer

Telephone ON Wall

Lady ON TV

Moustache ON Face

Bowerman & Choi’s Bowerman & Choi’s ChallengeChallenge

IM? UM?

AUF?

AN?

IM?

Considerable crosslinguistic variationsConsiderable crosslinguistic variations Children quickly learn language specific patternChildren quickly learn language specific pattern

By 18-months-old (if not earlier)By 18-months-old (if not earlier)

Bowerman & Choi’s Bowerman & Choi’s ChallengeChallenge Is it plausible that Is it plausible that

prelinguistic prelinguistic children have all children have all the spatial the spatial concepts of all the concepts of all the world’s languages world’s languages prior to word prior to word learning?learning?

(alternative (alternative unclear)unclear)

Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Dimensions in Dimensions in Conceptual SpaceConceptual Space

Prelinguistic children Prelinguistic children have have multidimensional multidimensional concept spaceconcept space

All natural language All natural language spatial concepts are spatial concepts are areas (or vectors) in areas (or vectors) in this spacethis space

Word learning Word learning consists of mapping consists of mapping words to these words to these vectorsvectors

Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Dimensions in Dimensions in Conceptual SpaceConceptual Space Feature theoryFeature theory In: +containmentIn: +containment Auf: Auf:

+support +support +horizontal+horizontal

(some problems (some problems with classical with classical feature theory)feature theory)

Alternative 2: Alternative 2: Linguistic DeterminismLinguistic Determinism Language learning leads to Language learning leads to

concept acquisitionconcept acquisition Appears to be Whorf’s viewAppears to be Whorf’s view How? Where do the concepts How? Where do the concepts

come from?come from?

Fodor’s challengeFodor’s challenge

What is concept learning?What is concept learning?– All explicit theories treat it as hypothesis testing All explicit theories treat it as hypothesis testing

(HT)(HT)– Collect data, form hypothesis, testCollect data, form hypothesis, test

HT presupposes that the learner has the concepts to HT presupposes that the learner has the concepts to form the hypothesisform the hypothesis

Thus concept *learning* is impossibleThus concept *learning* is impossible All concepts must be formed out of existing All concepts must be formed out of existing

conceptsconcepts– Perhaps by combining set features that are Perhaps by combining set features that are

innate or triggered by experience (classical innate or triggered by experience (classical theory)theory)

To what extent does language “map onto preexisting concepts or by its own structure lead children to create new ones? Have preverbal children learned all the major spatial relations that various languages express? Or have they learned only a subset and do languages teach them to attend to new ones they have not analyzed on their own?”

(Mandler, 1996, p. 379)

What do pre-linguistic infants know?

Empirical QuestionEmpirical Question

Looking for EvidenceLooking for Evidence

Initial Conceptual Structure & Cognitive

Predispositions

LanguageAcquisition

New Conceptual Structure & Cognitive

Predispositions

Conceptual Precursors to Conceptual Precursors to Language Language (S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004)(S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004)

Experiment with preverbal infants Experiment with preverbal infants (5 month-olds)(5 month-olds)

Investigated two forms of spatial Investigated two forms of spatial conception: conception:

1. Loose/Tight contact relation1. Loose/Tight contact relation

2. Containment/Support relation2. Containment/Support relation


How does one learn a conceptual How does one learn a conceptual distinction?distinction?– In linking different events by the same In linking different events by the same

semantic phrase, speakers perceive semantic phrase, speakers perceive implicit similarities in the actions…implicit similarities in the actions…

– Or, sensitivity to conceptual distinctions Or, sensitivity to conceptual distinctions (of any arbitrary language) emerge at a (of any arbitrary language) emerge at a pre-linguistic level, and are diminished or pre-linguistic level, and are diminished or enhanced by exposure to languageenhanced by exposure to language


* *

*habituate

Test

Conceptual Precursors to Conceptual Precursors to Language Language (S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004)(S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004) Experiment 3Experiment 3

– Infants habituated to tight and loose containing Infants habituated to tight and loose containing cylinderscylinders

– Using a divider separating the inserted object and Using a divider separating the inserted object and entered object, test trials would show the cylinder entered object, test trials would show the cylinder moving across, with either the lower cylinder moving across, with either the lower cylinder moving with it, or remaining stationarymoving with it, or remaining stationary

Observed longer looking times whenObserved longer looking times when– loose-habituated saw cylinders moving togetherloose-habituated saw cylinders moving together– Tight-habituated saw lower cylinder remain stillTight-habituated saw lower cylinder remain still


“surprise” look longer

Conceptual Precursors to Conceptual Precursors to Language Language (S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004)(S. Hespos & E. Spelke, 2004) Do you agree:Do you agree: These findings suggest a linguistic influence These findings suggest a linguistic influence

on conceptual distinction is selective at best; on conceptual distinction is selective at best; they can reduce sensitivity for distinctions they can reduce sensitivity for distinctions unmarked in a language – but it unmarked in a language – but it does notdoes not produce the conceptproduce the concept

Universalist PositionUniversalist Position

Infants’ knowledge of tight and Infants’ knowledge of tight and loose, support and containmentloose, support and containment– Needham and Baillargeon 1993 Needham and Baillargeon 1993 – Baillargeon, Needham, DeVos 1999Baillargeon, Needham, DeVos 1999– Huttel and Needham 2000Huttel and Needham 2000– Aguir and Baillargeon 1999Aguir and Baillargeon 1999e.g. 5.5 months, infants know containers have e.g. 5.5 months, infants know containers have

bottoms; 8.5 months, width and compressibility bottoms; 8.5 months, width and compressibility determines fit into a container. determines fit into a container.

Criticism of Hespos & Criticism of Hespos & SpelkeSpelke(and of Baillargeon and colleague’s infant studies)(and of Baillargeon and colleague’s infant studies)

Objects used in studies are very Objects used in studies are very similar perceptually.similar perceptually.

Could children abstract the Could children abstract the spatial relation when given spatial relation when given events involving very diverse events involving very diverse types of objects?types of objects?

Lexicalizations of Lexicalizations of IN IN and and ON ON in English and in English and KoreanKorean

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003)

Preferential Looking ParadigmPreferential Looking Paradigm 9-14 months-olds 9-14 months-olds

(PRELINGUISTIC!!!)(PRELINGUISTIC!!!) Use very different looking objectsUse very different looking objects

Set-upSet-up Scene 1-6: same relation (e.g., all loose-Scene 1-6: same relation (e.g., all loose-

containment examplescontainment examples Tests familiar vs. novel (e.g., loose-Tests familiar vs. novel (e.g., loose-

containment vs. tight-containment)containment vs. tight-containment)– Does the child look at one side more than the other?Does the child look at one side more than the other?

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003) Experiment 1 (English speakers)Experiment 1 (English speakers)

– Group 1: Tight-fitting containment Group 1: Tight-fitting containment habituationhabituation

– Group 2: Loose-fitting support habituationGroup 2: Loose-fitting support habituation

Test Group 1 & 2:Test Group 1 & 2:– Tight containment vs. Loose supportTight containment vs. Loose support

Adults were also given an oddity task, Adults were also given an oddity task, and then asked to give their reasoningand then asked to give their reasoning

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003) Results:Results:

– Observed Observed developmentaldevelopmental shiftshift in in preference across the infant age groupspreference across the infant age groups

Possibly, younger infants were continuing to Possibly, younger infants were continuing to process the scene while the older group had process the scene while the older group had completed processing the familiar scenecompleted processing the familiar scene

– Adults looked longer at the novel scene than Adults looked longer at the novel scene than the familiarthe familiar

In fact, they looked longer at first novel relation In fact, they looked longer at first novel relation than second, suggesting the second instance was than second, suggesting the second instance was already somewhat familiaralready somewhat familiar

– 78% correctly identified the oddity task, 78% correctly identified the oddity task, without reference to tight/loose fitwithout reference to tight/loose fit



Experiment 2 (English speakers)Experiment 2 (English speakers)– Same as experiment 1, except Same as experiment 1, except

habituation featured tight and loose habituation featured tight and loose containmentcontainment


Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003) Predictions for infants and adults?Predictions for infants and adults?

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003) Results of test trials:Results of test trials:

– Infants: Infants: showed a main effect for scene. All groups showed a main effect for scene. All groups (9-, 10-, 14-months) looking longer at (9-, 10-, 14-months) looking longer at familiar than the novel scene, with familiar than the novel scene, with no no development difference development difference as seen beforeas seen before

– Adults: Adults: showed no preference to either scene.showed no preference to either scene.12 out of 32 picked the “correct” odd one 12 out of 32 picked the “correct” odd one out. only 7 gave tight/loose justificationout. only 7 gave tight/loose justification


Experiment 3Experiment 3– Subjects were now Korean-raised Subjects were now Korean-raised

infants and adult Korean speakersinfants and adult Korean speakers– Identical to experiment 2Identical to experiment 2

This study would offer contrast to This study would offer contrast to a language with the relevant a language with the relevant distinctiondistinction


Predictions:Predictions:– Adults would succeed on both the Adults would succeed on both the

looking and oddity task, correctly looking and oddity task, correctly identifying and describing the odd identifying and describing the odd relationrelation

– Infants would behave similarly to the Infants would behave similarly to the English-environment onesEnglish-environment ones


Results:Results:– Main effect for scene:Main effect for scene:

Infants looked significantly longer at Infants looked significantly longer at the familiar than novel scenes, as the familiar than novel scenes, as well as the Korean-speaking adultswell as the Korean-speaking adults

– 80% of the Korean-speaking adults 80% of the Korean-speaking adults gave correct responses in the oddity gave correct responses in the oddity tasktask

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003) Contrast experiments 2 and 3Contrast experiments 2 and 3

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003)What did the study show in comparing What did the study show in comparing

English and Korean infants?English and Korean infants? Infants can abstract spatial relations Infants can abstract spatial relations

across scenes with varying objectsacross scenes with varying objects Infants show no initial cross-linguistic Infants show no initial cross-linguistic

difference, as they learn their difference, as they learn their language.language.

Understanding spatial relations: Understanding spatial relations: Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults Flexible Infants, Lexical Adults (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler, 2003)2003)What did the study show in comparing What did the study show in comparing

English and Korean adults?English and Korean adults? Adults show cross-linguistic differenceAdults show cross-linguistic difference They continue to show sensitivity to a They continue to show sensitivity to a

distinction made in their language, but distinction made in their language, but not to one not made in their language.not to one not made in their language.– E.g. English speakers insensitive to E.g. English speakers insensitive to

tight/loose.tight/loose.– (see also Hespos & Spelke)(see also Hespos & Spelke)

Hespos & Spelke’s Hespos & Spelke’s adultsadults

Analogy to Categorical Analogy to Categorical PerceptionPerception

Choi et al. have shown that 9-month-old Choi et al. have shown that 9-month-old infants have equal facility to make, e.g., infants have equal facility to make, e.g., English versus Korean spatial distinctions, English versus Korean spatial distinctions, while by 18 months they are tuned into the while by 18 months they are tuned into the local language-specific distinctions. By the local language-specific distinctions. By the time we reach adulthood, just as we find time we reach adulthood, just as we find alien language distinctions hard to hear, so alien language distinctions hard to hear, so English-speaking adults have lost the ability English-speaking adults have lost the ability to make Korean distinctions even in to make Korean distinctions even in nonlinguistic implicit categorization. nonlinguistic implicit categorization. (Levinson, p. 27)(Levinson, p. 27)

A Development StoryA Development Story

According to Bowerman and Choi, According to Bowerman and Choi, – First, infants notice different properties of First, infants notice different properties of

specific spatial situations, possibly in specific spatial situations, possibly in abstract forms; some properties embedded abstract forms; some properties embedded in context (Lego attachment)in context (Lego attachment)

– Stimulant to comparison is the redundant Stimulant to comparison is the redundant use of a word; as it is heard, the child use of a word; as it is heard, the child attempts, maybe subconsciously, to align attempts, maybe subconsciously, to align the referent situations and derive the the referent situations and derive the common linkcommon link

(Process dubbed as “Structure Alignment”)(Process dubbed as “Structure Alignment”)

A Development StoryA Development Story

– As semantic categories are formed, As semantic categories are formed, the speaker is more skilled at the speaker is more skilled at making rapid judgmentsmaking rapid judgments Korean speakers implicitly see tightness Korean speakers implicitly see tightness

of fit in comparison with previous of fit in comparison with previous experience; there is a standing experience; there is a standing readiness of judgment (Slobin, same readiness of judgment (Slobin, same volume)volume)

– Likewise, unencoded sensitivities Likewise, unencoded sensitivities diminish over timediminish over time

DiscussionDiscussion

What do you What do you think of the think of the analogy?analogy?

Kay & Kempton’s Kay & Kempton’s Naming StrategyNaming Strategy

Kay & Kempton’s Kay & Kempton’s Naming StrategyNaming Strategy

put on

put in

put on

A B

C

kkitanohta

kkita

Crosslinguistic Differences

Example of the typediscussed by Melissa Bowerman andcollaborators (Choi, DeLeon)

put on

B

kkita

put in

C

kkita

put on

A

nohta

Throw away the picture least like the other two.

Picture Selection

395 Pictures of Actions involving two objects.Either putting 2 objects together or taking apart 2 objects.

1. English speakers or Korean speakers asked to describe the pictures in their native language.

2. Then the pictures were coded for whether the relevant preposition (on or in) or the relevant verb (nohta or kkita) were used.

3. Based on the coding 10 pictures from each of three categories were selected.

Selected 10 pictures for each categoryCoding for the selected pictures

% of Korean Speakers Using “nohta” and “kkita”

Picture Description Task

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

s

NOHTAKKITA

% of English SpeakersUsing “on” and “in”


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

s

ONIN

BC

A

Nohta - Put On Kkita - Put On Kkita - Put In

Category A: On/Nohta

Category B: On/Kkita

Category C: In/Kkita

Practice:12 Practice Triads. Identical for each Ss.

Actual Test:

30C3 = 4060 possible triads. 500 triads takes 45 min to 90 min.9 Ss x 500 triads/Ss = 4500 Triads. 4500 Triads > 4060 Triads.Hence 9 Ss make 1 Meta Ss. For reliability, 2 Meta Ss per language (= 18 Ss per language).

Ss Recruited:18 Korean Ss (ESL students, grad students & spouses at Penn)18 English Ss (Penn students)

Actual Task: Which one is least like the others?

Pair of Picture ...

.

..

28 other pictures

0101...010000...00

Similarity Score = Sum of # times a 3rd picture isthrown away (0 to 28)

Cluster Analysis

Creating Similarity Matrix -- How Similar Are Two Given Pictures

Non-Overlapping Clusters for Korean SsColor CodeA: Put On/NohtaB: Put On/KkitaC: Put In/Kkita

P21

bu

lb/l

amp

P24

ea

rph

on

e/w

alkm

an

P10

rec

ord

/pla

yer

P5

icep

ack/

he

ard

P1

blo

ck/b

lock

s

P9

gin

ge

rbre

ad/t

ray

P4

bu

rger

/gri

ll

P27

bo

okm

ark

/bo

ok

P20

bo

ok/

shel

f

P28

len

s/ey

eP

22 s

lid

e/c

aro

us

el

P12

ke

y/c

hai

n

P30

fil

m/c

amer

a

P23

pie

ce/j

igsa

w

P13

bea

d/s

trin

g

P25

ke

y/k

eyh

ole

P14

ham

mer

/sti

ck

P18

bla

de/

razo

r

P17

sa

usa

ge/

stic

k

P15

rin

g/p

ole

P19

nu

t/b

olt

P29

lem

on

/gla

ss

P11

pu

pp

et/h

and

P16

rin

g/f

ing

er

P3

bo

ok

on

bo

oks

P6

tran

spa

ren

cy/O

H

P2

ute

ns

il/n

apki

nP

7 m

ou

se/

pad

P8

cher

ry/i

ce c

ream

P26

den

ture

/mo

uth

17.9

35.7

53.6

71.4

89.3

Cluster 1 Cluster 22-1 2-2

100

.0

Similarity

P10

rec

ord

/pla

yer

P5

icep

ack/

he

ard

P1

blo

ck/b

lock

s

P9

gin

ge

rbre

ad/t

ray

P4

bu

rger

/gri

ll

P27

bo

okm

ark

/bo

ok

P20

bo

ok/

shel

f

P28

len

s/ey

e

P22

sli

de

/ca

rou

sel

P12

ke

y/c

hai

nP

30 f

ilm

/cam

era

P23

pie

ce/j

igsa

w

P13

bea

d/s

trin

gP

21 b

ulb

/lam

p

P25

ke

y/k

eyh

ole

P14

ham

mer

/sti

ckP

18 b

lad

e/ra

zor

P17

sa

usa

ge/

stic

kP

15 r

ing

/po

leP

19 n

ut/

bo

ltP

29 l

emo

n/g

lass

P11

pu

pp

et/h

and

P16

rin

g/f

ing

er

P3

bo

ok/

bo

ok

sP

6 tr

ansp

are

ncy

/OH

P2

ute

ns

il/n

apki

nP

7 m

ou

se/

pad

P8

cher

ry/i

ce c

ream

P26

den

ture

/mo

uth

P24

ea

rph

on

e/w

alkm

an

17.9

35.7

53.6

71.4

89.3

Non-Overlapping Clusters for English Ss

Cluster 1 Cluster 22-1 2-2

Color CodeA: Put On/NohtaB: Put On/KkitaC: Put In/Kkita

Similarity

Description

For ABC Triads, % Pictures Thrown Out

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f P

ictu

res

Korean Speakers

Triad Task

English Speakers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f P

ictu

res

For ABC Triads, % Pictures Thrown Out

% of Korean Speakers Using “nohta” and “kkita”


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

s

NOHTAKKITA

% of English SpeakersUsing “on” and “in”


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B CCategory

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

s

ONIN

ppayta

A

take offppayta

B

take out

Complaint by some of the first study.“nohta”-put on is VERY different than “kkita”-put on. English speakers of course can see this big difference, and so act like Korean speakers.

Try replication with:

kkenayta

C

take out

Sample pictures selected based on the rating.

Category A: Off/Ppayta

Category B: Out/Ppayta

Category C: Out/Kkenayta

1-10: Off/Ppayta11-20: Out/Ppayta21-30: Out/Kkenayta

Clusters for English Ss

P1

bead

/str

ing

P2

ring/

finge

r

P3

key/

ring

P4

shea

th/k

nife

P5

dres

s/ha

nger

P6

pin/

tie

P7

cup/

cup

P8

cap/

cap

P9

Thi

mbl

e/th

umb

P10

hai

r ba

nd/h

ead

P11

see

d/ap

ple

P12

key

/key

hole

P13

plu

g/so

cket

P15

ear

phon

e/w

alkm

an

P16

pen

cil/s

harp

ener

P17

den

ture

/mou

thP

18 c

onta

ct le

ns/e

ye

P14

cor

k/ b

ottle

P19

boo

kmar

k/bo

ok

P20

nee

dle/

arm

P22

sod

a/sh

elf

P23

boa

t/ tu

b

P21

laun

dry/

was

her

P24

lette

r/m

ailb

ox

P25

chi

cken

/pan

P26

tom

ato/

bow

l

P27

fold

er/c

abin

et

P28

egg

/nes

tP

29 O

nion

/bag

P30

clu

b/go

lf ba

g

Cluster 1ECluster 2E

2E-1 2E-21E-2

1E-1

18.3

45.5

72.8

100.

0

Similarity

Clusters for Korean Ss

P9

Thi

mbl

e/th

um

b

P1

bea

d/st

ring

P2

ring

/fin

ger

P3

key/

ring

P4

shea

th/k

nife

P6

pin/

tieP

5 dr

ess

/han

ger

P7

cup/

cup

P8

cap/

cap

P10

ha

ir b

and/

head

P20

ne

edle

/arm

P11

see

d/a

ppl

e

P12

key

/ke

yhol

e

P15

ea

rpho

ne/w

alkm

an

P17

de

ntu

re/m

outh

P19

bo

okm

ark/

book

P13

plu

g/so

cket

P16

pe

ncil/

shar

pene

r

P18

con

tact

lens

/eye

P14

cor

k/ b

ottle

P21

lau

ndry

/ w

ashe

rP

24 le

tter

/ma

ilbox

P25

chi

cken

/pan

P29

On

ion/

bag

P22

sod

a/s

helf

P23

bo

at/

tub

P26

tom

ato/

bow

lP

27 f

olde

r/ca

bin

et

P28

eg

g/n

est

P30

clu

b/go

lf ba

g

Cluster 2K

Cluster 1K

1K-1 1K-2(same as 1E-2)

18.3

45.5

72.8

100

.0Similarity

1-10: Off/Ppayta11-20: Out/Ppayta21-30: Out/Kkenayta

Casasola et al. Casasola et al.

Could children abstract the spatial Could children abstract the spatial relation when given events involving relation when given events involving very diverse types of objects?very diverse types of objects?– Relations:Relations:

Containment Containment from both tight-in and loose-in from both tight-in and loose-in eventsevents

Tight-fit Tight-fit from both tight-on and tight-in from both tight-on and tight-in eventsevents

SupportSupport from both tight-on and loose-on from both tight-on and loose-on eventsevents

StimuliStimuli 3 Sets:Containment eventsTight-fit eventsSupport events

*Groups Habituated on Different Events, but tested on Same Events.

By Spatial Relationship: By Spatial Relationship: English speaking childrenEnglish speaking children

10-months-olds 18-months-olds

**

“Categorize” by containment only (not support or tight-fit) at both ages.“Categorize” in the sense of children looking longer to novel relation over old one.

Casasola & Bhagwat Casasola & Bhagwat (in press)(in press)

* *

Korean 10 months-old = English 10 months-olds: categorize by containment18 months-old Korean children <> English 18 months-old:

• K children categorize by tight-fit, and E children don’t• E children categorize by containment still, K children don’t

Same study as Casasola & Cohen, except with Korean children habituated on containment and support.

Casasola & Bhagwat Casasola & Bhagwat (in press)(in press) Now test English speaking 18 months-olds Now test English speaking 18 months-olds

with new paradigm, but with a novel word with new paradigm, but with a novel word “Toke”“Toke”During HabituationDuring Habituation– See: tight-fit eventsSee: tight-fit events– ““Look. She put it toke. See? She put it toke.”Look. She put it toke. See? She put it toke.”

During TestDuring Test– ““Look at that.”Look at that.”

18 months-old English speaking children 18 months-old English speaking children now categorize by tight-fitnow categorize by tight-fit

Acquisition of Acquisition of Second Language Spatial Second Language Spatial SemanticsSemantics

Edward Munnich’s DissertationEdward Munnich’s Dissertation

ENGLISH

SPANISHAANDUTCH

FINNISH

ON IN -LLA -SSA

ENINOP

First Stream: Crosslinguistic variation (Bowerman, 1996)

Second stream: Early Second stream: Early commitmentcommitment

• Early in life, we commit to L1 structure• Difficult to master L2 structure later in life

• Phonology (e.g. Werker, 1994; Kuhl et al., 1992)

• Morphosyntax (e.g. Johnson & Newport, 1989)

Hypotheses for spatial Hypotheses for spatial semanticssemantics

Continued Access: Learned at any time in life

Early Commitment: Optimally learned early in life

Experiment

• Question - Early commitment in spatial semantics?

• Approach - Examine spatial semantics of L2 learners,

varying in Age of Acquisition (AOA)

- Compare to morphosyntax, using Johnson & Newport’s (1989) methods

Participants

• • Control: 20 adult native English Control: 20 adult native English speakersspeakers

• Experimental: 60 adult non-native • Experimental: 60 adult non-native English speakersEnglish speakers

AGE OF ACQUISITION OF

ENGLISH

FIRST

LANGUAGE

Early

(0-7)

Mid

(8-13)

Late

(14+)

Korean 10 10 10Spanish 10 10 10

Design

• • Morphosyntax Morphosyntax replicationreplication

• Spatial Semantics • Spatial Semantics - Open Ended- Open Ended- Ratings- Ratings

Morphosyntax StimuliJohnson & Newport (1989)

Task: Judge grammaticality of sentences Task: Judge grammaticality of sentences

1(a) The bird has fallen from the oak 1(a) The bird has fallen from the oak tree tree (b) * The bird has fall from the oak (b) * The bird has fall from the oak treetree

2(a) The women played basketball2(a) The women played basketball (b) *The women played the (b) *The women played the basketballbasketball

Rules tested:Rules tested:• auxiliaries • auxiliaries • subcategorization• subcategorization• determiners • determiners • yes/no questions• yes/no questions• plurals • plurals • word order• word order

Spatial Semantic Stimuli

• • 20 contrasts20 contrasts10 “on” vs. “in”,10 “on” vs. “in”,5 “on” vs. “over”, 5 “on” vs. “over”, 5 “on vs. “under”5 “on vs. “under”

• 4 sentences per contrast• 4 sentences per contrast

Total: 80 sentencesTotal: 80 sentences

Open Ended Spatial SemanticsFill in the blanks with spatial terms

There is a blue ball __ the container. There is a blanket __ the man.

Spatial Semantic RatingsRate uses of spatial terms

Response: There is a blue ball in the container.

Model A: There is a blue ball on the container.Model B: There is a blue ball in the container.

There is a blanket on top of the man.

There is a blanket over the man.There is a blanket on the man.

Spatial Semantic RatingsScoring: Example 1

Given

Open Ended Response: There is a blue ball in the container.

Ratings

Model Response Code Answer CorrectA: on worse 0 0 YESB: in just as good 1 1 YES

Spatial Semantic RatingsScoring: Example 2

Given

Open Ended Response: There is a blue ball in the container.

Ratings

Model Response Code Answer CorrectA: on better 1 0 NOB: in just as good 0 1 NO

Morphosyntax: Early Morphosyntax: Early commitmentcommitment(Johnson & Newport, 1989)(Johnson & Newport, 1989)

Pro

port

ion

Cor

rect

Age of Acquisition

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

r= - 0.77

Replication in morphosyntaxReplication in morphosyntax

Pro

port

ion

Cor

rect

Johnson and Newport (1989) Present Experiment

Age of Acquisition

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

Korean r= - 0.81

Spanish r= - 0.76

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

r= - 0.77

Open Ended Spatial Open Ended Spatial SemanticsSemantics

Pro

port

ion

Cor

rect

Morphosyntax

Age of Acquisition

Korean

Spanish

r= - 0.76

Open Ended

Korean

Spanish

r= - 0.46

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

Spatial Semantic RatingsSpatial Semantic Ratings

Pro

port

ion

Cor

rect

Morphosyntax

Age of Acquisition

Korean

Spanish

r= - 0.76

Ratings

Korean

Spanish

r= - 0.41

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

early latemid

AOA effects in spatial AOA effects in spatial semanticssemantics

1. People relative to object-regions vs. supporters

• e.g. “in the seats” vs. “on the sofa”


2. Indentations vs. images relative to surfaces:

• e.g. “crack in” vs. “paint on pavement”:


3. Top members vs. other members relative to set:

• e.g. “red book on stack” vs. “in stack”


4. Locations relative to political vs. geographic entities:

• e.g. “airport in the city” vs. “on the island”


5. Substances higher than vs. touching top surface

• e.g. “chocolate over” vs. “on the orange”


6. People relative to mass transit vs. small vehicles:

• e.g. “on the ferry” vs. “in the canoe”

Lack of effects in spatial Lack of effects in spatial semanticssemantics

1. Objects contained by vs. supported by containers

• e.g. “ball in” vs. “on the container”

Lack of effects in spatial Lack of effects in spatial semanticssemantics

2. Objects folded vs. spread underneath other objects

• e.g. “foil under1” vs. “under2 the bowl”

Returning to hypothesesReturning to hypotheses

• Continued Access: Learned at any time in life

• Early Commitment: Optimally learned early in life

Conclusion: Early commitment in spatial semantics, as in morphosyntax and phonology.

ColorColor

Date post:	14-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	eunice-spencer
View:	232 times
Download:	1 times

Psy1306 Language and Thought Lecture 5 Spatial Language.

Documents