• Toddlers generalize words learned from speakers who accurately label familiar objects, but not speakers who are inaccurate.• When speakers ask questions that contain accurate or inaccurate labels for objects during familiarization, toddlers do not consider either speaker a reliable source of knowledge for novel labels.• These data suggest that toddlers are using more than word-object-speaker associations to determine speaker reliability. | INTRODUC TI ONBecause the relation between how a word sounds and what a word means is arbitrary and conventional (Saussure, 1916(Saussure, /1966, children must learn the meanings of words from other competent language users. Several studies have found that preschoolers use speakers' history of accuracy in labeling familiar words when they learn meanings of novel words. For example, Koenig and colleagues (e.g., Koenig & Harris, 2005) have shown that 4-year-olds identified an informant who was accurate in labeling familiar objects as knowledgeable about the meaning of words, and predicted that she would be more likely to know the name of a novel object over an informant who was always inaccurate at labeling familiar objects.Even before children reach preschool age, they exhibit an ability to track interlocutors' competence or accuracy and use it in learning situations. For example, Zmyj, Buttelmann, Carpenter, and Daum (2010) showed that 14-month-olds are less likely to imitate agents' novel actions when those agents use familiar objects incompetently (for example, putting a shoe on their hand instead of foot) than when agents use familiar objects competently. Similarly, 12-month-olds track informants' competence and use it in their own exploratory behavior (Stenberg, 2013). Even 8-month-old infants have the capacity to monitor the reliability of a potential informant's gaze and AbstractThe present studies examine whether and how 18-month-olds use informants' accuracy to acquire novel labels for novel objects and generalize them to a new context. In Experiment 1, two speakers made statements about the labels of familiar objects. One used accurate labels and the other used inaccurate labels. One of these speakers then introduced novel labels for two novel objects. At test, toddlers saw those two novel objects and heard an unfamiliar voice say one of the labels provided by the speaker. Only toddlers who had heard the novel labels introduced by the accurate speaker looked at the appropriate novel object above chance. Experiment 2 explored possible mechanisms underlying this difference in generalization. Rather than making statements about familiar objects' labels, both speakers asked questions about the objects' labels, with one speaker using accurate labels and the other using inaccurate labels. Toddlers' generalization of novel labels for novel objects was at chance for both speakers, suggesting that toddlers do not simply associate hearing the accurate label with the reliability of the speaker. We discuss these results in terms of potential mechanisms by which children learn ...

• Toddlers generalize words learned from speakers who accurately label familiar objects, but not speakers who are inaccurate.• When speakers ask questions that contain accurate or inaccurate labels for objects during familiarization, toddlers do not consider either speaker a reliable source of knowledge for novel labels.• These data suggest that toddlers are using more than word-object-speaker associations to determine speaker reliability. | INTRODUC TI ONBecause the relation between how a word sounds and what a word means is arbitrary and conventional (Saussure, 1916(Saussure, /1966, children must learn the meanings of words from other competent language users. Several studies have found that preschoolers use speakers' history of accuracy in labeling familiar words when they learn meanings of novel words. For example, Koenig and colleagues (e.g., Koenig & Harris, 2005) have shown that 4-year-olds identified an informant who was accurate in labeling familiar objects as knowledgeable about the meaning of words, and predicted that she would be more likely to know the name of a novel object over an informant who was always inaccurate at labeling familiar objects.Even before children reach preschool age, they exhibit an ability to track interlocutors' competence or accuracy and use it in learning situations. For example, Zmyj, Buttelmann, Carpenter, and Daum (2010) showed that 14-month-olds are less likely to imitate agents' novel actions when those agents use familiar objects incompetently (for example, putting a shoe on their hand instead of foot) than when agents use familiar objects competently. Similarly, 12-month-olds track informants' competence and use it in their own exploratory behavior (Stenberg, 2013). Even 8-month-old infants have the capacity to monitor the reliability of a potential informant's gaze and AbstractThe present studies examine whether and how 18-month-olds use informants' accuracy to acquire novel labels for novel objects and generalize them to a new context. In Experiment 1, two speakers made statements about the labels of familiar objects. One used accurate labels and the other used inaccurate labels. One of these speakers then introduced novel labels for two novel objects. At test, toddlers saw those two novel objects and heard an unfamiliar voice say one of the labels provided by the speaker. Only toddlers who had heard the novel labels introduced by the accurate speaker looked at the appropriate novel object above chance. Experiment 2 explored possible mechanisms underlying this difference in generalization. Rather than making statements about familiar objects' labels, both speakers asked questions about the objects' labels, with one speaker using accurate labels and the other using inaccurate labels. Toddlers' generalization of novel labels for novel objects was at chance for both speakers, suggesting that toddlers do not simply associate hearing the accurate label with the reliability of the speaker. We discuss these results in terms of potential mechanisms by which children learn ...

In communicating events by gesture, participants create codes that recapitulate the patterns of word order in the world's vocal languages (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2008;Hall et al., 2010;Langus and Nespor, 2010;Gibson et al, 2013; and others). Participants most often convey simple transitive events using gestures in the order Subject-Object-Verb (SOV), the most common word order in human languages. When there is a possibility of confusion between subject and object, participants use the order Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). This overall pattern has been explained by positing an underlying cognitive preference for subject-initial, verb-final orders, with the verb-medial order SVO order emerging to facilitate robust communication in a noisy channel (Gibson et al., 2013). However, whether the subject-initial and verb-final biases are innate or the result of languages that the particpants already know has been unclear, because participants in previous studies all spoke either SVO or SOV languages, which could induce a subject-initial, verb-late bias. Furthermore, the exact manner in which known languages influence gestural orders has been unclear. In this paper we demonstrate that there is a subject-initial and verb-final gesturing bias cross-linguistically by comparing gestures of speakers of SVO languages English and Russian to those of speakers of VSO languages Irish and Tagalog. The findings show that subject-initial and verb-final order emerges even in speakers of verb-initial languages, and that interference from these languages takes the form of occasionally gesturing in VSO order, without an additional bias toward other orders. The results provides further support for the idea that improvised gesture is a window into the pressures shaping language formation, independently of the languages that participants already know.

Children use speakers' past accuracy to make inferences about novel word meanings those individuals provide in the future. An open question is whether children can retrospectively re-evaluate information upon learning that the source was inaccurate. We addressed this question in two experiments, in which a speaker first introduced labels for novel objects and then revealed that she is either accurate or inaccurate in naming familiar objects. Experiment 1 showed that 3.5-6.5-year-olds displayed enhanced performance on a word knowledge test when they had learned novel words from a speaker who then showed herself to be an accurate labeler as opposed to an inaccurate one. Experiment 2 replicated this finding, but had a different speaker provide inaccurate label information. This manipulation did not affect learning, suggesting that children discount speakers and are not simply influenced by the demands of processing inaccurate information. Together, these results indicate that 3.5-6.

A nascent understanding of absent reference emerges around 12 months: provided with rich contextual support, infants look and point to the location of a displaced object. When can infants understand absent reference without contextual support? Using a procedure modified from Hendrickson and Sundara (2017), 13- and 16-month-olds first listened to utterances containing familiar target words, while viewing a checkerboard. Then, two objects – a referent and a distractor (e.g., a cup and a shoe) – appeared on the screen. Only 16-month-olds demonstrated a reliable looking preference for the referents, suggesting that listening to the utterances activated their mental images of the referents. These results establish that at 16 months, infants comprehend reference to absent entities without any contextual support.

The comprehension of abstract verbal reference–speech that refers to objects, events or ideas that are perceptually unavailable–is pivotal to infants’ language acquisition. It permits infants to engage in language-mediated learning, such as learning about remote places, imaginary situations, or past events that cannot be witnessed directly. At issue is how and how early this capacity emerges. We review evidence suggesting that abstract verbal reference first emerges around infants’ first birthdays and becomes increasingly robust by their second. We propose that abstract verbal reference rests upon an interplay between infants’ representational, communicative, and linguistic capacities and is fueled by learning mechanisms, such as memory, statistical learning and cross-situational comparison. We demonstrate that each constituent capacity is critical to infants’ appreciation of abstract verbal reference. We discuss downstream consequences of abstract verbal reference for infants’ language and conceptual development, suggesting new research directions to advance our understanding of infants’ rapid acquisition of the referential power of language.

Human language permits us to call to mind objects, events, and ideas that we cannot witness directly. This capacity rests upon abstract verbal reference: the appreciation that words are linked to mental representations that can be established, retrieved and modified, even when the entities to which a word refers is perceptually unavailable. Although establishing verbal reference is a pivotal achievement, questions concerning its developmental origins remain. To address this gap, we investigate infants’ ability to establish a representation of an object, hidden from view, from language input alone. In two experiments, 15-month-olds (N = 72) and 12-month-olds (N = 72) watch as an actor names three familiar, visible objects; she then provides a novel name for a fourth, hidden fully from infants’ view. In the Semantic Priming condition, the visible familiar objects all belong to the same semantic neighborhood (e.g., apple, banana, orange). In the No Priming condition, the objects are drawn from different semantic neighborhoods (e.g., apple, shoe, car). At test infants view two objects. If infants can use the naming information alone to identify the likely referent, then infants in the Semantic Priming, but not in the No Priming condition, will successfully infer the referent of the fourth (hidden) object. Brief summary of results here. Implications for the development of abstract verbal reference will be discussed.

No abstract