Young Toddlers’ Word Comprehension Is Flexible and Efficient

Much of what is known about word recognition in toddlers comes from eyetracking studies. Here we show that the speed and facility with which children recognize words, as revealed in such studies, cannot be attributed to a task-specific, closed-set strategy; rather, children’s gaze to referents of spoken nouns reflects successful search of the lexicon. Toddlers’ spoken word comprehension was examined in the context of pictures that had two possible names (such as a cup of juice which could be called “cup” or “juice”) and pictures that had only one likely name for toddlers (such as “apple”), using a visual world eye-tracking task and a picture-labeling task (n = 77, mean age, 21 months). Toddlers were just as fast and accurate in fixating named pictures with two likely names as pictures with one. If toddlers do name pictures to themselves, the name provides no apparent benefit in word recognition, because there is no cost to understanding an alternative lexical construal of the picture. In toddlers, as in adults, spoken words rapidly evoke their referents.

[1]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review , 2012 .

[2]  M. Brent,et al.  The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development , 2001, Cognition.

[3]  V. Marchman,et al.  Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. , 2008, Developmental science.

[4]  Patricia A. Ganea Contextual factors affect absent reference comprehension in 14-month-olds. , 2005, Child development.

[5]  Charles R. Gallistel,et al.  Language Learning and Development , 2011 .

[6]  Elika Bergelson,et al.  The acquisition of abstract words by young infants , 2013, Cognition.

[7]  Megan M. Saylor,et al.  Twelve- and 16-month-old infants recognize properties of mentioned absent things. , 2004, Developmental science.

[8]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[9]  M K Tanenhaus,et al.  Eye Movements and Lexical Access in Spoken-Language Comprehension: Evaluating a Linking Hypothesis between Fixations and Linguistic Processing , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[10]  L McHale,et al.  The spoken word. , 1998, Midwifery today with international midwife.

[11]  Falk Huettig,et al.  The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search , 2007 .

[12]  Patricia A. Ganea,et al.  Thinking of Things Unseen , 2007, Psychological science.

[13]  P. Haggard,et al.  Bodily Illusions Modulate Tactile Perception , 2005, Current Biology.

[14]  L. Gleitman,et al.  Hard Words , 2005, Sentence First, Arguments Afterward.

[15]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[16]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  Why Look? Reasons for Eye Movements Related to Language Production. , 2004 .

[17]  A. Meyer,et al.  Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[18]  J. Halberda,et al.  The development of a word-learning strategy , 2003, Cognition.

[19]  B. Gick,et al.  Aero-tactile integration in speech perception , 2009, Nature.

[20]  Kim Plunkett,et al.  Phonological priming and cohort effects in toddlers , 2011, Cognition.

[21]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[23]  G. Berkeley Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision , 2004 .

[24]  Amy Perfors,et al.  Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. , 2006, Developmental psychology.

[25]  Alan Johnston,et al.  The Hollow-Face Illusion: Object-Specific Knowledge, General Assumptions or Properties of the Stimulus? , 2007, Perception.

[26]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Picture Naming in Picture Context: Semantic Interference or Semantic Facilitation? , 2003 .

[28]  Sylvia Yuan,et al.  Syntactic bootstrapping. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[29]  John P. Pinto,et al.  Rapid Gains in Speed of Verbal Processing by Infants in the 2nd Year , 1998 .

[30]  K. Plunkett,et al.  In the Infant’s Mind’s Ear , 2010, Psychological science.

[31]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Variability in early communicative development. , 1994, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[32]  G. Altmann,et al.  Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm , 2005, Cognition.

[33]  Sylvia Yuan,et al.  “Really? She Blicked the Baby?” , 2009, Psychological science.

[34]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Scene Perception for Psycholinguists. , 2004 .

[35]  Anne Fernald,et al.  Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. , 2008, Developmental science.

[36]  R. Aslin,et al.  Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children , 2000, Cognition.

[37]  Daniel Swingley,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[38]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Phonotactic Knowledge and Lexical-Semantic Processing in One-year-olds: Brain Responses to Words and Nonsense Words in Picture Contexts , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  E. Hoff The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. , 2003, Child development.

[40]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.