Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
of Verbs
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff
and Roberta Church Jacquet
University of Delaware
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
Tem,ple University
Ratna Nandaknmar
University of Delaware
GOLINKOFF, ROBERTA MICHNICK; JACQUET, ROBERTA CHURCH; HIRSH-PASEK, KATHY; and NANDAKUMAR, RATNA, Lexical Principles May Underlie the Learning of Verbs. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1996,
67, 3101-3119, To examine whether children (mean age 34 months) can fast map and extend
novel action labels to actions for which they do not already have names, the comprehension of
familiar and novel verbs was tested using colored drawings of Sesame Street characters performing both familiar and unfamiliar actions. Children were asked to point to the character
"verbing," from among sets of 4 drawings. With familiar words and actions, children made correct
choices 97% of the time. With novel action words, children performed at levels mostly significantly above chance, selecting a previously unlabeled action or another token of a just-names action. In a second, control experiment children were asked to select an action from among the same
sets of 4 drawings, but they were not given a novel action name. Here children mainly demonstrated
performance at levels not significantly different from chance, showing that the results from the
main experiment were attributable to the presence of a word in the request. Results of these
studies are interpreted as support for the availability of principles to ease verb acquisition.
This article was presented at the Society for Research in Child Development in April 1991,
in Seattle, We thank Kelly Olguin for assistance in running these studies, Carolyn Mervis and
Melissa Schweisguth for their comments, and Alice Eyman, Director of the University of Delaware Laboratory Preschool for her help in obtaining subjects. The research was supported in
part by grants #l-R01-HD1596'4-01 and #l-R01-HD19568-01 from NICHHD to thefirstand
third authors. Requests for reprints should be sent to Golinkoff at the College of Education,
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, Golinkoff's e-mail address is Roberta @ Udehedu,
[Child Development, 1996,67,3101-3119, 1996 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc,
All rights reserved, 0009-3920/96/6706-0008801,00]
3102
Child Development
Golinkoff et al.
cues are not always available and, in any
event, cannot aid children in deciding on the
correct construal for the meaning of a novel
word. To solve such problems for the learning of novel nouns, several researchers argue that children must possess a principle
which allows them to readily assign new labels to previously unnamed objects. Markman (1987; Merriman & Bowman, 1989) offered the "mutual exclusivity" principle:
children select the unnamed object because
they are biased against allowing objects to
have more than one name. Clark's (1983)
"contrast" principle predicts that children
choose the unnamed object on the assumption that a new word must differ in meaning
from the words they already know. Golinkoff, Mervis, and Hirsh-Pasek (1994), finding these principles lacking after a careful
review (see also Gathercole, 1989; Rice,
1990), suggested the "novel namenameless
category" principle (or N3C): the child will
find an unnamed, as opposed to an already
named, referent for a novel name. Golinkoff",
Hirsh-Pasek, Mervis, Frawley, and Peirillo
(1995) argued that children must be similarly motivated to attach novel action names
to unnamed actions. The rapid word learning observed in the second year of life could
not occur if children did not search out potential referents for novel words in nonostensive contexts.
Verb Extension
The fast mapping of verb meaning
would be of limited utility if the child could
not use a newly learned verb to label novel
exemplars ofthe action; the economy of linguistic representation rests on the fact that
words label categories (be they categories of
objects, actions, or properties) and not
unique instances. For nouns and adjectives,
research indicates that after only one or two
nonostensive exposures to a word-referent
combination, extension occurs to new exemplars of the word (e.g., Golinkoff, HirshPasek, et al., 1992; Heibeck & Markman,
1987). Very little is presently known about
whether extension of novel verbs occurs as
readily. Behrend (1990; Behrend, Harris, &
Cartwright, 1955) and Forbes and Farrar
(1993) study verb extension as a way to discover how children construe verb meaning.
First, Behrend et al. (1995) taught children
a novel verb for a novel action. For example,
children were shown a videotape of a person
twirling a spaghetti server to collect tangled
yarn and told that the person is "pinting."
Second, children were shown variations on
this event in which either the instrument
3103
3104
Child Development
Experiment 1
To test for the fast mapping and extension of novel verbs, children participated in
a task where they were asked to select drawings of Sesame Street characters performing
both novel and familiar actions. From among
a set of four drawings, children were asked
to give the experimenter a picture of both a
known action (e.g., "Which one is waving?")
and an unfamiliar action (e.g., "Which one is
glorping?") on each trial in counterbalanced
order. Some trials were designed to test for
fast mapping and some for extension of the
newly learned verb. Fast mapping would be
demonstrated if children selected the unfamiliar action in response to a request which
Golinkoff et al.
TABLE 1
THE 18 FAMILIAR AND FIVE UNFAMILIAR ACTIONS
USED IN EXPERIMENTS 1 AND 2
ACTION TYPE
Familiar
Unfamiliar
clapping
coloring
crying
dressing
drinking
eating
falling
kicking
pointing
reading
riding
running
sitting
sleeping
standing
throvs'ing
washing
waving
doing a split"
doing an arabesque"
doing a backbend^
doing a pushup
tilting one's head"
3105
3106
Child Development
FIG. 1.The five unfamiliar actions. Going clockwise from the top left, the actions depicted are
bending the back, arching one's back (with back facing floor) while on hands and feet, sitting with legs
apart with arms to one side, doing a push-up, doing an arabesque.
The stimulus display for each trial consisted of the same drawings used in the familiarization phase now mounted in groups
of four on a piece of 8 inch x 11 inch laminated construction paper as shown on Figure 2. To lessen any confusion, each character was always shown in the same quadrant
on each sheet (e.g., Ernie always appeared
in the upper left cell). The cell in which the
"correct" response was found was counterbalanced across trials. In the description of
the test trials below, familiar actions will be
labeled with an " F " and unfamiliar actions
with a "U"; numeral subscripts will be used
to indicate when a different familiar or unfamiliar action was used. When a second token
of an unfamiliar action was used, the subscript will contain an "a" for the original action and a "b" for the second token.
TABLE 2
EXAMPLE OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR ONE BLOCK OF TRIALS
Possible
Familiar
Actions'
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
eating (Fi)
reading (F2)
sleeping (F3)
standing (F4)
crying (F5)
sitting (Fg)
falling (F7)
coloring (Fg)
waving (F9)
Possible
Unfamiliar
Actions
Action
Requested''
daxing (UjJ
Where's daxing?
Where's eating?
unlabeled (U2)
daxing (Ujj)
lorping (U3J
daxing (Ui^)
lorping (U3J,)
unlabeled (U2)
Where's
Where's
Where's
Where's
Where's
Where's
standing?
daxing?
falling?
lorping?
waving?
lorping?
" The second block of trials used a diflferent set of familiar and unfamiliar actions (see
Table 1).
* Familiar actions were requestedfirston half of the trials, according to four random orders.
FIG. 2.A sample stimulus sheet. Going clockwise from the top left, the actions depicted are
eating, sleeping, "daxing," and reading.
3108
Child Development
Results
Are there differences by sex of the subjects?We conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with the between-subjects factor of sex
and the within-subjects factor of familiarity
(familiar vs. unfamiliar questions). On each
The stimulus group for Trial 3 consisted trial (there were four trials in each of two
of two different familiar actions (Fg and F7), blocks), one question was asked about a fathe original unfamiliar action seen on Trial miliar action and one about an unfamiliar ac1 (Via)' 3.nd a new unfamiliar action {U^J. tion for a total of eight questions about familThis trial tested whether children preferred iar actions and eight about unfamiliar
to assign a new unfamiliar action name to an actions. Subjects \vere assigned two scores
as yet unlabeled action {UsJ ^^ opposed to
the previously labeled unfamiliar action of 0-8, one for the number of questions an(Uja). That is, would subjects, offered an- swered correctly about familiar actions and
other new action name, select the new unfa- one for the number of questions answered
miliar action rather than the action previ- according to predictions about unfamiliar acously labeled on Trials 1 and 2? This trial tions. Because neither the main effect of sex
represented a very stringent test of whether nor the interaction approached significance,
the child had learned the name of the origi- subsequent analyses were pooled over sex.
nal action since the subject had been exDo children select the correct, familiar
posed to the original name/action combina- actions?The only significant effect found
tion only two times. If children had in fact in the above analysis was question type:
learned the new verb used in Trials 1 and 2, Questions asked about familiar actions were
they should assume that the seeond new significantly easier for children to answer
Golinkoff et al. 3 1 0 9
than questions about unfamiliar actions, F(l, type. A superscript of " 1 " means that the " 1 "
23) = 27.70, p < .001. The mean number was scored on the first trial and not on the
correct for familiar actions was 7.75 (SD = second; the absence of a superscript means
.45); for unfamiliar actions, the mean num- that the " 1 " was achieved on only the secber answered according to predictions was ond trial. Finally, a score of "2" means that
5.58 (SD = 1.31).
the child selected the appropriate unfamiliar
Do children select a novel action as the ^'^t^"" " ^ * ^^^' "^ ^ particular type.
referent for a novel action term?Table 3
As can be seen on Table 3, on trial 1
shows the proportion of children's seleetions where there were three familiar actions and
in response to requests using a novel action one unfamiliar action, children selected the
word. Percentages were computed out of 24 novel action 83% of the time. To evaluate
possible responses since on each trial (14), whether, out of a group of 12, children sethe 12 subjects were asked two questions of" lected the novel action at a rate greater than
that type. Underlined scores represent the that expected by chance, second-order binoresponses that were predicted by the rele- mial probabilities were calculated in the folvant lexical principles. When a cell has no lowing way. First, the probability of a single
entry, the response could not occur on that child obtaining a score of 0,1, or 2 was calcutrial. Table 4 presents the data for each sub- lated. Thus, since the chance probability of
ject by trial type. A score of "0" means that a child selecting the unfamiliar item on a
on the two occasions when the child re- single trial is .25 (given four choices), the
ceived a trial of that type, the child did not chance probability of a child selecting the
select the appropriate unfamiliar action on unfamiliar item on both trials of the same
either trial. Similarly a score of " 1 " means type and scoring 2 out of 2 is (.25) x (.25) =
that the child selected the appropriate unfa- .0625. The chance probability of scoring 1
miliar action on one ofthe two trials of that out of 2 is (.25) x (.75) X 2 = .3750, and the
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGES OF CHILDREN'S ACTION SELECTIONS (Standard Deviations in Parentheses) IN RESPONSE
TO REQUESTS USING A NOVEL VERB (Experiment 1) OR TO REQUESTS WITHOUT A NOVEL VERB
(Experiment 2)
ACTION TYPE
First
Novel
Token of
First Novel
Second
Novel
Token of
Second Novel
83(25)
29 (79)
Distractor
Novel
17
71
71 (40)
25 (52)
25
16
Familiar
17
42
63 (38)
50 (60)
12
33
12
34
67 (39)
29 (67)
17
42
20
29
NOTE.Underlined numbers were the hypothesized outcomes; cells with no entry could not occur on that particular trial.
" These trials pertain to the principles of mutual exclusivity and novel namenameless category.
^ These trials pertain to the taxonomic assumption and to lie categorical scope principle.
3110
Child Development
TABLE 4
INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN'S RESPONSES IN EXPERIMENTS 1 AND 2 BY TRIAL TYPE
TRIAL TYPE
AGE
SEX
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
1'
1'
1'
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1^
2
2
2
2
0
1'
1
0
2
2
2
1'
2
1
1^
0
2
1'
1
2
0
2
1'
1
2
2
1'
2
1'
1'
0
2
0
2
F
F
F
F
F
F
MO
M
M
M
M
M
0
1^
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1'
1'
0
0
1'
1
0
1'
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1^
0
0
2
0
1'
1'
0
1
0
1^
1
0
0
0
2
1'
2
" A score of 0 means that ou neither of the two trials of that type did the child select the
unknown action; a score of 2 means that the unknown action was selected on both trials. A
score of 1 with the superscript 1 means the child selected the unknown action only on the first
trial of that type; the absence of a superscript means that the child selected the unknown action
only on the second trial of that type.
Golinkoff etal.
children obtained a score of 2, By the second-order binomial, the likelihood that five
or more children in a group of 12 would select the second unfamiliar object by chance
is .000519. Also, five of the 12 children obtained a score of 1. We next evaluated the
likelihood that 10 children out of a group of
size 12 would score either 1 or 2 out of 2 by
chance. This probability is also small
(.005365). When children erred on trial 3,
they selected the just-named action 25% of
the time and a familiar action 12% of the
time.
3111
3112
Child Development
Experiment 2
This control study was designed to determine whether the choice of novel actions
in Experiment 1 was controlled by the use
of a novel action label. The results of the
prior experiment may be attributable to artifact (perhaps a preference for novelty, see
Merriman, 1991) and not to the operation of
lexical principles if children behave the
same way when asked to select an action
without being offered a name. This experiment exactly duplicates the design of the
main experiment. Thus, children were still
asked for a familiar action on each trial and
still had to choose from among familiar and
unfamiliar actions (see Table 2). However,
wherever a novel action was requested by
name in Experiment 1, children here were
asked, "Can you show me someone doing
something?"
Subjects
Twelve children (six boys and six girls)
(mean age = 35 months, 2 days; range =
33,05-36,10) were tested. All were Caucasian and native speakers of English with
multiword speech.
Procedure
The same two-part procedure was used
as in the Experiment 1, with the exception
that no novel action was requested by name.
Results
Responses to familiar actions.When a
familiar action was requested by name, children were correct on 100% of die trials.
Did children select the same unknown
action from Experiment 1 when the request
did not include a novel term?On trial 1,
when requests did not include a novel term,
children selected the novel action only 29%
Golinkoff et aL
3113
of the time (see Table 3). Recall that, as displayed on Table 4, a child could obtain a
score of 0 (not selecting the novel action on
either ofthe two trials of that type); a score
of 1 (selecting the novel action on one of
the two trials of that type); or a score of 2
(selecting the novel action on both trials of
that type). The majority of responses on trial
1 were 0 (seven children); the rest were
scores of 2 (two children) and 1 (three children). To evaluate whether the number of
children (out of 12 tested) selecting the
novel action was significantly greater than
the number expected by chance, secondorder binomial probabilities were used to
compute change levels at the high tail of the
distribution as in Experiment 1. However,
since there were so few scores of 2 in Experiment 2, these probabilities were only computed by considering whether the number
of children who scored either 1 or 2 out of 2
in a group of size 12 exceeded chance. First,
the probability of a single child obtaining
a score of 0, 1, or 2 was calculated. These
probabilities are .5625 for a score of 0, .375
for a score of 1, and .0625 for a score of 2.
Second, expected frequencies for scores of
0, 1, or 2 were calculated by multiplying
each ofthe chance probabilities by the number of subjects (12); expected frequencies
are 6.75, 4.5, and .75, respectively. Third, a
second-order application of the binomial
distribution was used to obtain the probability that five or more children in a sample of
12 would obtain scores of 1 or 2 out of 2
by chance. Since this probability is high
(.22619), it appears that children did not select the novel action with a frequency significantly greater than that expected by
chance when it was not requested by name
on trial 1.
Did children select the second novel action on trial 3, despite the fact that it was
not requested by name?On trial 3, children's selection ofthe novel action they had
not already seen on trial 1 was at a rate of
50% (see Table 3). As Table 4 shows, two
children scored 2, two children scored 0, and
the eight remaining children scored 1. The
probability that 10 or more children out of
12 could obtain a score of 1 or 2 by chance
is small (.005365). This significant result
suggests that the novelty of the second unnamed novel action may have played a role
in children's responses on this trial. Nonetheless, comparisons of children's performance across the two experiments (see below) suggest that even on trial 3, arguably
the most difficult trial, children in the main
3114
Child Development
TABLE 5
OBSEHVED FBEQUENCIES OF HIGH (3-4) AND LOW (0-2) SCORES
ON FAST MAPPING THIALS (Trials 1 and 3) AND EXTENSION
TRIALS (Trials 2 and 4) IN THE MAIN AND
CONTROL EXPEWMENTS
EXPERIMENT
TRIALS
1 and 3
2 and 4
Scores
Main
Control
3-4
0-2
Fisher exact p < .05
2-4
0-2
Fisher exact p < .05
8
4
2
10
6
6
1
11
Golinkoff et al.
when offered a label in the presence of an
unfamiliar action.
General Discussion
3115
3116
Child Development
Golinkoff et al.
action labels are extended to other actions
that appear to require the same semantic
components as the original action" (p. 208).
"Semantic component" refers to elements of
meaning like "theme," "path," and "manner" that the world's languages either confiate, within the meaning of their verbs or
mark outside the verb with a separate form
(Frawley, 1992). Although considerably
more research is needed, it appears that children can detect these semantic components
through their observation of events (Pinker,
1989) as well as from the syntactic frames
which surround the verb (Gleitman, 1990;
Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, in press). When errors of verb extension occur, categorical
scope predicts that they will likely be a result of the child failing to note one of the
semantic components conflated in the verb.
For example, Choi and Bowerman (1992) report that a Korean child used the verb ollita
(cause to go up) incorrectly, to mean "putting [something] away regardless of directionality" (that is, up or down) because this
child failed to realize that the element of
path was included in the verb.
This study, which tested for verb extension by showing a new agent performing the
action in exactly the same way, may be an
easier situation than children typically encounter. In the real world, even when the
same agent performs the same action, the action is never done in exactly the same way.
In addition, the location of the action may
change, as well as the instrument used to
perform it, or the manner in which it is performed. Further, all the novel actions depicted were intransitive. Fast mapping results from Merriman et al. (1995) with
2-year-olds (but not 4-year-olds, see Merriman et al., 1993) suggest that intransitive actions without an object may be easier to fast
map (and perhaps, to extend) than transitive
actions. It would be interesting to explore
whether the fast mapping and extension observed in this study would occur at the same
rate if transitive actions were tested.
Conclusions
The present study is important because
it is among thefirstto show that fast mapping
and rapid extension occur with verbs. Further, children's word-learning behavior was
in accordance with the prediction of principles that have been demonstrated to hold for
object word learning. The availability of
such principles across form classes may help
explain word acquisition phenomena like
the vocabulary spurt.
3117
References
Au, T. K., Dapretto, M., & Song, Y-K. (in press).
Input vs. constraints: Early word acquisition
in Korean and English. Journal of Memory
and Language.
Au, T. K., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Acquiring
word meanings via linguistic contrast. Cognitive Development, 2, 217-236.
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Infants' ability to consult
the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20, 377-394.
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988).
From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Behrend, D. A. (1990). The development of verb
concepts: Children's use of verbs to label familiar and novel events. Child Development,
61, 681-696.
Behrend, D. A., Harris, L. L., & Cartwright, K. B.
(1995). Morphological cues to verb meaning:
Verb inflections and the initial mapping of
verb meanings. Journal of Child Language,
22, 89-106.
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York:
Wiley.
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P., & Hood, L. (1975).
Structure and variation in child language.
Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 40(2, Serial No. 160).
Bloom, L., Tinker, E., & Margulis, C. (1993). The
words children learn. Cognitive Development, 8, 431-450.
Carey, S., & Bardett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single
new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17-29.
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1992). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean:
The influence of language specific lexicalization patterns. In B. Levin & S. Pinker (Eds.),
Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 8 3 121). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clark, E. V. (1983). Convention and contrast in
acquiring the lexicon. In T. B. Seiler & W.
Wannenmacher (Eds.), Concept development
and the development of word meaning (pp.
67-89). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A
constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dockrell, J. E. (1981). The child's acquisition of
unfamiliar words: An experimental study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Stirling, Scotland.
Dockrell, J. E., & Campbell, R. (1986). Lexical
acquisition strategies in the preschool child.
3118
Child Development
GolinkofPetal.
in Child Development, 54 (3-4, Serial No.
220).
Merriman, W. E., Marazita, J., & Jarvis, L. H.
(1993). Four-year-olds' disambiguation of action and object word reference./ouma/ of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 412-430.
Merriman, W. E., Marazita, J., & Jarvis, L. H.
(1995). Children's disposition to map new
words onto new referents. In M. Tomasello
& W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for
things (pp. 147-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Merriman, W. E., & Schuster, J. M. (1991). Young
children's disambiguation of object name reference. Child Development, 62, 1288-1301.
Mervis, C. B., & Bertrand, J. (1994). Acquisition
ofthe novel name-nameless category (N3C)
principle. Child Development, 65, 16461662.
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rice, M. L. (1990). Preschoolers' QUIL: Quick in-
3119
cidental learning of words. In G. ContiRamsden & C. Snow (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 7). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from
television: Children's word learning when
viewing. Child Development, 59, 420-424.
Rosch, E., Mervis, G. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson,
D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
Shuff-Bailey, M., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1995, April).
Lexical extension in young children: Perceptual similarity vs. object kind. Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis.
TardifF, T. (1996). Nouns are not always leEimed
before verbs: Evidence from Mandarin speakers' early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology, 32, 492-504.
Tomasello, M., & Barton, M. (1994). Learning
words in nonostensive contexts. Developmental Psychology, 30, 639-650.
Waxman, S. R., & Kosowski, T. D. (1990). Nouns
mark category relations: Toddlers' and preschoolers' word-learning biases. Child Development, 61, 1461-1473.