Preschoolers' pragma/c generaliza/ons based on scalar adjec/ve use Amanda Pogue, Michael K. Tanenhaus, & Chigusa Kurumada

University of Rochester

Problems that children face in reference comprehension: 1.  Children must iden/fy that there are many ways to refer, and that some of these choices differ in the amount of informa/on that they convey 2.  Need to understand what causes these differences in informa/vity 3.  Need to learn when it is appropriate to aMribute these uMerance choices speaker-specifically

Evidence suggests that children can: •  Iden/fy when there is not enough info provided in an uMerance by age 31 •  Produce under-informa/ve uMerances at age 3, but can appropriately adjust when asked for more info2 1,2 •  Children produce more appropriate referen/al expressions when given feedback to their aMempts •  Can iden/fy an unreliable labeller and use this info to make judgments of the reliability of a labeller for future labeling events3,4

Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Can children use the input to detect an informa/vely unreliable speaker?

Can children update their predic/ons about future likely expressions?

*

0.75

0.50

Click on the big bucket.

Click on the bucket.

Feedback Condition (n=16)

No Feedback Condition (n=16)

Non−Modified Scalar−Modified

Non−Modified Scalar−Modified

Non−Modified Scalar−Modified

1.00

0.25

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

Modifying speaker (informa/ve)

0.00

Non-Modifying speaker (under- informa/ve)

Test Trial Type

-  Overall effect of instruc/on type (β =0.79344, p<.05) -  No effect of feedback (β = 0.01645, p > .9)

No Feedback Feedback Condition

- 

Performance between groups differs (p < .006) -  Feedback: differs from chance (p <.001) -  No Feedback: not different from chance (p >. 5) -  The feedback on this task does not tell a child why they might have chosen the incorrect item Current Direc/ons: -  Looking at the amount of certainty children show on individual trials -  Inves/ga/ng whether we can predic/vely code whether a child likely does or does not know the difference between the speakers

Adults

Test (12 trials): who do you think said this hint?

Scalar−Modified Trials

Test (1 trial): which speaker would you like to hear the next hint from?

Adults (No Feedback, n=32)

Elmo’s friend said, “Click on the (small) flower.” Do you think it was Dave or Sally?

1.00

1.00

0.75

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00 0.000.00

0.25 0.50 0.25 0.75 Non−Modified Trials

Children

0.50

0.25

0.00

Feedback Condition (n=16) No Feedback Condition (n=16)

1.00 0.50 0.00 Non−Modified Trials

0.25 0.750.50 0.75 Non−Modified Trials

1.00 1.00

-  A lot of individual differences, some kids approaching adult like generaliza/ons

Main Findings: 1.  Feedback seems to help children discriminate speakers with respect to their informa/ve language use. 2.  Successful iden/fica/on seems to play a role in later retrieval of speaker-specific informa/on 3.  Children struggle to fully generalize their expecta/ons

Adults

Scalar−Modified Trials

Proportion of Responses Given for the Scalar Modifying Speaker

1.00

Feedback condiBon (n=16): correct 100% on the informa/ve speaker trials, 50% on the underinforma/ve speaker trials No Feedback (n=16): not told about the correctness of their selec/ons Exposure (20 trials):

Proportion of Responses Given for the Modifying Speaker

*

Feedback condiBon (n=25): received a s/cker if they were correct: 100% on the informa/ve speaker trials, 0% on the under-informa/ve speaker trials No Feedback (n=24): received s/ckers for correct guesses at the end of the experiment Exposure (12 trials):

Current Work & Future DirecBons: 1.  Rela/onship between certainty during training and the likelihood of generalizing speaker-specifically 2.  Rela/onship between own ability to produce appropriately modified referring expressions on reliability detec/on 3.  Children’s knowledge on the role of adjec/ve use as a contras/ve cue

References: 1.  Deutsch, W., & Pechmann, T. (1982). Social interac/on and the development of definite descrip/ons. Cogni?on, 11, 159–184. 2.  MaMhews, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely iden/fy referents for others: A training study. Child Development, 78, 1744– 1759. 3.  Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76, 1261–1277. 4.  Scofield, J., & Behrend, D. a. (2008). Learning words from reliable and unreliable speakers. Cogni?ve Development, 23, 278–290.