The Pursuit of Word Meanings.
We evaluate here the performance of four models of cross-situational word learning: two global models, which extract and retain multiple referential alternatives from each word occurrence; and two local models, which extract just a single referent from each occurrence. One of these local models, dubbed Pursuit, uses an associative learning mechanism to estimate word-referent probability but pursues and tests the best referent-meaning at any given time. Pursuit is found to perform as well as global models under many conditions extracted from naturalistic corpora of parent-child interactions, even though the model maintains far less information than global models. Moreover, Pursuit is found to best capture human experimental findings from several relevant cross-situational word-learning experiments, including those of Yu and Smith (), the paradigm example of a finding believed to support fully global cross-situational models. Implications and limitations of these results are discussed, most notably that the model characterizes only the earliest stages of word learning, when reliance on the co-occurring referent world is at its greatest.
Center for General Linguistics, Berlin.
Jon Scott
JS
Stevens
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.
Lila R
LR
Gleitman
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.
John C
JC
Trueswell
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
Charles
C
Yang
D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D007804:Language Development; D008960:Models, Psychological; D014706:Verbal Learning; D014825:Vocabulary
Computational modeling; Cross-situational word learning; Language acquisition; Reinforcement learning; Word learning
Child Dev. 1991 Oct;62(5):875-90
1756664
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 28;109(9):3253-8
22331874
Am J Psychol. 2012 Summer;125(2):127-43
22774677
Dev Sci. 2017 Mar;20(2):
26575408
Cognition. 2003 Apr;87(3):151-78
12684198
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1989;54(3-4):1-132
2608077
Cogn Psychol. 1991 Jul;23(3):331-92
1884596
Psychol Rev. 2007 Apr;114(2):245-72
17500627
Psychol Sci. 2009 May;20(5):578-85
19389131
Cognition. 1996 Oct-Nov;61(1-2):39-91
8990968
Front Psychol. 2012 Jul 02;3:200
22783211
Cognition. 2013 Jun;127(3):391-7
23542412
Psychol Rev. 1951 Sep;58(5):313-23
14883244
Cogn Psychol. 2013 Feb;66(1):126-56
23142693
Lang Learn Dev. 2016;12 (3):252-261
27672354
J Child Lang. 1995 Oct;22(3):497-529
8789512
Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):442-6
19945696
Cognition. 1999 Dec 7;73(2):135-76
10580161
J Child Lang. 1997 Oct;24(3):535-65
9519585
Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):79-87
17362382
Cognition. 2015 Dec;145:53-62
26302052
Cognition. 2007 Oct;105(1):125-65
17094956
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):11278-83
23798423
Cogn Psychol. 1988 Apr;20(2):121-57
3365937
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Oct;8(10):451-6
15450509
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):317-24
22215466
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 31;108(22):9014-9
21576483
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 7;101(36):13124-31
15331782
J Child Lang. 1993 Jun;20(2):395-418
8376476
Cognition. 2016 Mar;148:117-35
26775159
Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;34(6):1017-63
21564243
Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
8943209
Am J Psychol. 1957 Jun;70(2):186-93
13424758
Cogn Psychol. 2004 Mar;48(2):127-62
14732409
Cognition. 2012 Jul;124(1):85-94
22525312
Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1558-68
17692305
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):892-903
24417325
Lang Learn Dev. 2009;5(4):203-234
24465183
Child Dev. 1996 Dec;67(6):3101-19
9071772
Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):414-20
17576281
J Child Lang. 1990 Jun;17(2):357-74
2380274
Child Dev. 2004 Jul-Aug;75(4):1115-39
15260868