Evidence for a Core Representation for Support in Early Language Development

ABSTRACT Configurations of support include those that exhibit Support-From-Below (cup on table), as well as those involving Mechanical Support (e.g., stamp on envelope, coat on hook). Mature language users show a “division of labor” in the encoding of support, frequently using basic locative expressions (BE on in English) to encode Support-From-Below but lexical verbs (e.g., stick, hang) to encode cases of Mechanical Support. This suggests that Support-From-Below configurations may best represent the core for the category of support, and could be privileged in supporting early mappings to spatial language. We tested this hypothesis by examining spontaneous productions of children younger than 4 years found in the CHILDES corpora. Children used on to encode Support-From-Below more than other types of support configurations. They also showed clear distinctions in how they mapped different verbs (e.g., BE vs. lexical verbs) to Support-From-Below configurations compared to other support configurations. Analysis of parent language suggests that these observed patterns in children’s language cannot be fully explained by input, although a role for input is likely for children’s encoding of Mechanical Support. Thus, a concept of Support-From-Below may serve as a core representation of support, and hence the privileged spatial representation onto which spatial language for support is mapped.

[1]  Ursula Dresdner Spatial Prepositions A Case Study From French , 2016 .

[2]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  An Account of Infants' Physical Reasoning , 2008 .

[3]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  B. MacWhinney The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk , 1992 .

[5]  P. Harris,et al.  What is ‘on’ and ‘under’ for 15-, 18- and 24- month-olds? Typicality effects in early comprehension of spatial prepositions , 2002 .

[6]  Renée Baillargeon,et al.  Explanation-based learning in infancy , 2017, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Soonja Choi,et al.  Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition , 2003 .

[8]  M. Bowerman Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective , 1996 .

[9]  Kristen Nicole Johannes Geometric and functional knowledge in the acquisition of spatial language , 2015 .

[10]  Katherine D. Kinzler,et al.  Core knowledge. , 2007, Developmental science.

[11]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Containment and Support: Core and Complexity in Spatial Language Learning. , 2017, Cognitive science.

[12]  Melissa Bowerman,et al.  Topological relations picture series , 1992 .

[13]  B. Landau Update on "What" and "Where" in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms. , 2017, Cognitive science.

[14]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Learning Simple Spatial Terms: Core and More , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity , 2006 .

[16]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis , 2009 .

[17]  S. Garrod,et al.  In and on: investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions , 1999, Cognition.

[18]  D. Slobin,et al.  The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish , 1977, Journal of Child Language.

[19]  M. Casasola,et al.  Infant categorization of containment, support and tight‐fit spatial relationships , 2002 .

[20]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[21]  Barbara Landau,et al.  The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in and on , 2016, Cognition.