Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 14:2 (2023) ► pp.167–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Joint actions affect infants’ cognitive word–object processing

ORCiD logo with link | Paderborn University
Published online: 22 March 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.21024.wil
Abstract
This study focuses on how salient, social, and interactional cues (solo vs. joint exploration) help 10-month-old infants (n = 66) to solve referential ambiguity, and examines the retention of word–object mappings. Results show that infants attend to salient objects when no other resources of information are available. When salient and social cues conflict, infants follow social information for referent selection. By comparing solo and joint object exploration, this study provides first evidence that joint actions modify the duration of infants’ attention to objects not only during object play but also in a retention test. During object play, joint actions with a social partner sustain infants’ attention to a referent. In the retention trials, joint actions affect infants’ attention patterns by reducing their initial saliency bias. This, in turn, indicates a change in cognitive processing of the word–object link.
Résumé
Cette étude se concentre sur la façon dont les indices saillants, sociaux et interactionnels (exploration solo ou conjointe) aident les nourrissons de 10 mois (n = 66) à résoudre l’ambiguïté référentielle, et elle étudie la rétention des correspondances mot-objet. Les résultats montrent que les nourrissons s’intéressent aux objets saillants lorsqu’aucune autre source d’information n’est disponible. Lorsque les indices saillants et sociaux entrent en conflit, les enfants suivent l’information sociale pour la sélection du référent. En comparant l’exploration d’objets en solo et en commun, cette étude fournit pour la première fois la preuve que les actions conjointes modifient la durée de l’attention des nourrissons pour les objets, non seulement pendant le jeu d’objets, mais aussi lors d’un test de rétention. Pendant le jeu d’objets, les actions conjointes avec un partenaire social maintiennent l’attention des nourrissons sur un référent. Dans les essais de rétention, les actions conjointes affectent les schémas d’attention des nourrissons en réduisant leur biais de saillance initial. Ceci, à son tour, indique un changement dans le traitement cognitif du lien mot-objet.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Cueing attention for word–object mappings
    • 1.2The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Stimuli
    • 2.3Procedure and design
      • 2.3.1Exploration phase
      • 2.3.2Saliency phase
      • 2.3.3Training: Labeling and playing phase
      • 2.3.4Coding of infants’ gaze
      • 2.3.5Test phase
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Saliency phase
    • 3.2Labeling phase
    • 3.3Playing phase
    • 3.4Test phase
      • 3.4.1Onset part
      • 3.4.2Offset part
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The role of salient, social, and interactional cues in infants’ referent selection
    • 4.2The role of solo and joint exploration in infants’ retention
    • 4.3Limitations and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (49)
References
Axelsson, E. L., Churchley, K., & Horst, J. S. (2012). The right thing at the right time: why ostensive naming facilitates word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(88), 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62(5), 875–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Early referential understanding: Infants’ ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 832–843. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., Bill, B., Desjardins, R. N., Irwin, J. M., & Tidball, G. (1996). Infants’ reliance on a social criterion for establishing word–object relations. Child Development, 67(6), 3135–3153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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), 3253–3258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Early word comprehension in infants: Replication and extension. Language Learning and Development, 11(4), 369–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bion, R. A., Borovsky, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Fast mapping, slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word–object mappings in relation to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30 months. Cognition, 126(1), 39–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandone, A. C., Pence, K. L., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2007). Action speaks louder than words: Young children differentially weight perceptual, social, and linguistic cues to learn verbs. Child Development, 78(4), 1322–1342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butterworth, G., & Cochran, E. (1980). Towards a mechanism of joint visual attention in human infancy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 253–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 63(4), 1–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Entremont, B., Hains, S. M., & Muir, D. W. (1997). A demonstration of gaze following in 3-to 6-month-olds. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(4), 569–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 991, 9602–9605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 147–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gliga, T., & Csibra, G. (2009). One-year-old infants appreciate the referential nature of deictic gestures and words. Psychological Science, 20(3), 347–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. A. (2006). Baby wordsmith from associationist to social sophisticate. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(1), 30–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 125–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollich, G. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Brand, R. J., Brown, E., Chung, H. L., … Bloom, L. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: An emergentist coalition model for the origins of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(3), i–vi, 1–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2008). Fast mapping but poor retention by 24-month-old infants. Infancy, 131, 128–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houston-Price, C., Plunkett, K., & Duffy, H. (2006). The use of social and salience cues in early word learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 951, 27–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krauzlis, R. J., Bollimunta, A., Arcizet, F., & Wang, L. (2014). Attention as an effect not a cause. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 457–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, C., Angelopoulos, M., & Bennett, P. (1999). Word learning in the context of referential and saliency cues. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 60–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muir, D., Hains, S., Cao, Y., & D’Entremont, B. (1996). 3- to 6-month-olds’ sensitivity to adult intentionality: The role of adult contingency and eye direction in dyadic interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 191, 199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J., Cimiano, P., & Mandler, J. M. (2018). Evidence for early comprehension of action verbs. Language Learning and Development, 15(1), 64–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plunkett, K. (1997). Theories of early language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(4), 146–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hennon, E. A. (2006). The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words through perceptual saliency. Child Development, 77(2), 266–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohlfing, K. J., Wrede, B., Vollmer, A.-L., & Oudeyer, P. Y. (2016). An alternative to mapping a word onto a concept in language acquisition: Pragmatic frames. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (470), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1998). Memory and attention make smart word learning: An alternative account of Akhtar, Carpenter, and Tomasello. Child Development, 69(1), 94–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18(9), 668–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sloetjes, H. & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category: ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 816–820). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S. & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60(2), 143–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Colunga, E., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Knowledge as process: Contextually cued attention and early word learning. Cognitive Science, 34(7), 1287–1314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suarez-Rivera, C., Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2019). Multimodal parent behaviors within joint attention support sustained attention in infants. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 96–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tincoff, R., & Jusczyk, P. W. (1999). Some beginnings of word comprehension in 6-month-olds. Psychological Science, 10(2), 172–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Six-month-olds comprehend words that refer to parts of the body. Infancy, 17(4), 432–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-year-olds use pragmatic cues to differentiate reference to objects and actions. Cognitive Development, 101, 201–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57(6), 1454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treue, S. (2003). Visual attention: the where, what, how and why of saliency. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 428–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Lin, Y., Armstrong III, B., Cartmill, E. A., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Gleitman, L. R. (2016). Perceiving referential intent: Dynamics of reference in natural parent–child interactions. Cognition, 1481, 117–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wass, S. V., Clackson, K., Georgieva, S. D., Brightman, L., Nutbrown, R., & Leong, V. (2018). Infants’ visual sustained attention is higher during joint play than solo play: Is this due to increased endogenous attention control or exogenous stimulus capture? Developmental Science, 21(6), e12667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wass, S. V., Noreika, V., Georgieva, S., Clackson, K., Brightman, L., Nutbrown, R., … Leong, V. (2018). Parental neural responsivity to infants’ visual attention: How mature brains influence immature brains during social interaction. PLoS Biology, 16(12), e2006328. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wildt, E., Rohlfing, K. J., & Scharlau, I. (2019). The role of saliency in learning first words. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1150), 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L., Markman, E. M., & Fitzsimmons, C. M. (1994). Rapid word learning in 13- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 30(4), 553–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2016). The social origins of sustained attention in one-year-old human infants. Current Biology, 26(9), 1235–1240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yurovsky, D., & Frank, M. C. (2017). Beyond naïve cue combination: Saliency and social cues in early word learning. Developmental Science, 20(2), e12349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue