Cross-Situational Word Learning in Children and Adults: The Case of Lexical Overlap

Abstract

Cross-situational word learning, the ability to decipher word-referent links over multiple ambiguous learning events, has been documented across development and proposed to be key to vocabulary acquisition. However, this work has largely focused on learning from one-to-one structure, where each referent is consistently linked with a single label. In contrast, learners can encounter lexical overlap, such as when learning synonyms, which requires learning from structure that presents multiple labels linked with the same thing (many-to-one structure). Are children capable of cross-situational word learning from encounters presenting consistent lexical overlap? How does this ability change with age? Here, we provide a first test of cross-situational word learning from input presenting lexical overlap across age by testing 4-to 7-year-old children (N = 190) and adults (N = 80) on their ability to learn from one-to-one or two-to-one structure. Results showed that adults (Experiment 1) were successful at learning from both types of structure, with an advantage for one-to-one structure. Children (Experiment 2) performed less well than adults overall, and failed to learn from two-to-one structure. With extended training (Experiment 3), older children were successful at learning from two-to-one structure while younger children were not. These results provide the first evidence that cross-situational word learning from one-to-one and two-to-one structure improves over age.

Probing the role of multilingualism and working memory in cross-situational word learning.

“…Last, we suggest that it is also important to consider how cognitive skills and multilingualism contribute to CSWL developmentally. Learners’ capacities in ambiguous word learning, cognitive skills, and degrees of multilingual experience change across the lifespan (e.g., Benitez & Li, 2023; Benitez et al, 2020; Fitneva & Christiansen, 2017; Halberda, 2003; Lewis et al, 2020; Spencer, 2020). Correspondingly, the strength of contributors to CSWL may shift across development.…”

“…CSWL has also been demonstrated across mapping structures, such as when a referent has a single name (1:1 mapping structure) or when a referent has two names (2:1 mapping structures), such as couch and sofa referring to the same referent. Although CSWL from structure presenting 2:1 mappings has been found to be more challenging than CSWL of 1:1 mappings, evidence shows that both children and adults are successful at CSWL from structure presenting 2:1 mappings (e.g., Benitez & Li, 2023; Benitez et al, 2016; Chan & Monaghan, 2019; Frank et al, 2009; Li & Benitez, 2023). Given its robustness across development and across mapping structures, CSWL has been implicated as central to vocabulary acquisition (Kucker et al, 2015; Regier, 2005; Siskind, 1996; L.…”

“…A few studies have assessed the role of multilingualism on CSWL of 1:1 and overlapping structures, with mixed findings (Benitez & Li, 2023; Benitez et al, 2016; Chan & Monaghan, 2019; Crespo & Kaushanskaya, 2021; Crespo et al, 2023; Escudero et al, 2016; Li & Benitez, 2023; Poepsel & Weiss, 2016). For instance, Escudero et al (2016) found that simultaneous bilinguals (exposed to two languages by the age of 2) outperformed monolinguals in a CSWL task of 1:1 mappings, when the to-be-learned words were phonotactically similar.…”

“…Prior studies examining individual differences in CSWL and the cognitive skills that are associated with CSWL have focused on learning from 1:1 mapping structure. However, CSWL of 1:1 and 2:1 mappings differs: there is a disadvantage for learning from 2:1 mapping structure (e.g., Benitez & Li, 2023; Benitez et al, 2016). Assessing how working memory is tied to learning each mapping structure may help to understand what underlies the differences in learning across the two (e.g., K.…”

Lexical tone as a cue in statistical word learning from bilingual input

“…Results showed that adults aggregated the word-referent co-occurrences across trials and learned the correct word-referent mappings. To date, a large literature has replicated this effect in adults, and demonstrated that children and infants also utilize such statistical co-occurrences to identify word-referent mappings from ambiguous naming events (Alt et al, 2014;Benitez & Li, 2023;Benitez et al, 2020b;Crespo & Kaushanskaya, 2021;Crespo et al, 2023;L. B. Smith & Yu, 2008;K.…”