Biomedical subjects

Cynthia Fisher

Publications and source records attributed to Cynthia Fisher.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension.

Children quickly acquire basic grammatical facts about their native language. Does this early syntactic knowledge involve knowledge of words or rules? According to lexical accounts of acquisition, abstract syntactic and semantic categories are not primitive to the language-acquisition system; thus, early language comprehension and production are based on verb-specific knowledge. The present experiments challenge this account: We probed the abstractness of young children's knowledge of syntax by testing whether 25- and 21-month-olds extend their knowledge of English word order to new verbs. In four experiments, children used word order appropriately to interpret transitive sentences containing novel verbs. These findings demonstrate that although toddlers have much to learn about their native languages, they represent language experience in terms of an abstract mental vocabulary. These abstract representations allow children to rapidly detect general patterns in their native language, and thus to learn rules as well as words from the start.

Child Language↗

PubMed2005

What does syntax say about space? 2-year-olds use sentence structure to learn new prepositions.

Children as young as two use sentence structure to learn the meanings of verbs. We probed the generality of sensitivity to sentence structure by moving to a different semantic and syntactic domain, spatial prepositions. Twenty-six-month-olds used sentence structure to determine whether a new word was an object-category name (This is a corp!) or a spatial-relational term (This is acorp my box!). We argue that children rely on the intimate relationship between nouns in sentences and semantic arguments of predicate terms: Noting that a new word takes noun arguments identifies the new word as a predicate term, and directs the child's attention to relations among its arguments.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMed2005

Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action?

The present research investigated whether 13.5-month-old infants would attribute to an actor a disposition to perform a recurring action, and would then use this information to predict which of two new objects-one that could be used to perform the action and one that could not-the actor would grasp next. During familiarization, the infants watched an actor slide various objects forward and backward on an apparatus floor. During test, the infants saw two new identical objects placed side by side: one stood inside a short frame that left little room for sliding; the other stood inside a longer frame that left ample room for sliding. The infants who saw the actor grasp the object inside the short frame looked reliably longer than those who saw the actor grasp the object inside the long frame. This and control results from a lifting condition provide evidence that by 13.5 months, infants can attribute to an actor a disposition to perform a particular action.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2003

Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience.

Two experiments investigated whether novel phonotactic regularities, not present in English, could be acquired by 16.5-month-old infants from brief auditory experience. Subjects listened to consonant-vowel-consonant syllables in which particular consonants were artificially restricted to either initial or final position (e.g. /baep/ not /paeb/). In a later head-turn preference test, infants listened longer to new syllables that violated the experimental phonotactic constraints than to new syllables that honored them. Thus, infants rapidly learned phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience and extended them to unstudied syllables, documenting the sensitivity of the infant's language processing system to abstractions over linguistic experience.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2002

The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: a reply to Tomasello (2000).

In his paper "Do young children have adult syntactic competence?" Tomasello (Cognition 74 (2000) 209) interprets young children's conservatism in language production as evidence that early language use, and verb use in particular, are based entirely on concrete lexical representations, showing no evidence of abstract syntactic categories such as "verb" or "transitive sentence". In this reply, I argue that Tomasello's interpretation depends on three questionable premises: (a) that anyone with a robust grammatical category of verbs would use new verbs in unattested sentence constructions; (b) that there are no reasons other than lack of syntactic competence for lexical effects in language use; and (c) that children always interpret a new verb presented in the context of an action on an object as a causal action verb, and therefore as one they should use transitively. I review evidence against all of these assumptions. Tomasello's data, among others', show that children indeed learn item-specific facts about verbs and other lexical items - as they must, to become competent speakers of their native language. However, other data suggest that more abstract descriptions of linguistic input also play a role in early language use. To achieve a complete picture of how children learn their native languages, we must explore the interactions of lexical and more abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMed2002

Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience.

Three experiments asked whether phonotactic regularities not present in English could be acquired by adult English speakers from brief listening experience. Subjects listened to consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllables displaying restrictions on consonant position. Responses in a later speeded repetition task revealed rapid learning of (a) first-order regularities in which consonants were restricted to particular positions (e.g. [baep] not *[paeb]), and (b) second-order regularities in which consonant position depended on the adjacent vowel (e.g. [baep] or [pIb], not *[paeb] or *[bIp]). No evidence of learning was found for second-order regularities in which consonant position depended on speaker's voice. These results demonstrated that phonotactic constraints are rapidly learned from listening experience and that some types of contingencies (consonant-vowel) are more easily learned than others (consonant-voice).

Adult↗