Getting your ducks in a row eerste tweede ????? vierde Acquiring - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Getting your ducks in a row eerste tweede ????? vierde Acquiring Acqui ing or ordi dinal nals and and or ordi dinal nality ty Caitlin Meyer, Sjef Barbiers & Fred Weerman c.m.meyer@uva.nl 1

Is num Is number er uni uniquel quely hum human? an? Cor Core Knowledg owledge of of Number Number Approximate Number System Object Tracking System (ANS) (OTS) Imprecise Precise Ratio ‐ sensitive Sensitive to +1 Large quantities Small quantities (<4) (e.g. overviews in Feigenson, Dehaene & Spelke 2004; Spelke & Kinzler 2007) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 2

Cor Core kno knowledg ledge + lan language = exa exact num number? ber? • Language argued (by psychologists) to play a critical role in development of exact number – Count list (e.g. Carey) – Quantification & grammatical number (e.g. Spelke) • So… – Role of language exactly? – Cross ‐ linguistic differences? – Effects beyond cardinals? October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 3

Car Cardinal inal acqui acquisi siti tion on • Slow and sequential Knower ‐ Begins around levels • “Knower ‐ stages” Pre 2;0 = tiered acquisition 1 2;0 – 3;0 • Individual variation 2 2;6 – 3;9 – Start & duration of each stage 3 2;8 – 4;0 – Exact ages vary 4 2;8 – 4;5 between studies CP 3;0 – 4;6 • Mostly English. Also: Japanese, French, Russian, Slovenian, Saudi Arabic... but not Dutch. (see e.g. Almoammer et al. 2013) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 4

Wh What at about about or ordinals? dinals? • Natural extension of research on cardinals • Conceptually (counting principles) • Linguistically (ordinal = cardinal + –de/–ste ) • Yet have received very little attention (4 studies in 35 years) Fischer & Beckey (1990), Miller et al (2000), Colomé & Noël (2012), Koch et al. (in press) • Data is inconclusive, lacks proper link to cardinals October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 5

Car Cardinals inals & Or Ordi dinal nals in in Dut Dutch # Car ardinal dinal Ordinal inal # Car ardinal dinal Ordinal inal 1 één eer–ste eer 11 11 elf elf–de 2 twee twee–de 12 12 twaalf twaalf–de 3 drie der der–de 13 13 der–tien der–tien–de 4 vier vier–de 14 14 veer–tien veer–tien–de 5 vijf vijf–de 15 15 vijf–tien vijf–tien–de 6 zes zes–de 16 16 zes–tien zes–tien–de 7 zeven zeven–de 17 17 zeven–tien zeven–tien–de 8 acht acht–ste 18 18 acht–tien acht–tien–de 9 negen negen–de 19 19 negen–tien negen–tien–de 10 10 tien tien–de 20 20 twin–tig twin–tig–ste October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 6

Ques Questions ons How does the acquisition of cardinals in Dutch… 1. Relate to the acquisition of cardinals in other languages? 2. Relate to the acquisition of ordinals?  Pattern and timing 3. To what extent does language play a role? October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 7

Hypotheses Hypotheses & Pre Predictions • Lower ordinals easier than higher ones – Ordinal acquisition requires knowing its cardinal – The higher the number, the more demanding the task • Ordinal acquisition is not tiered if language plays a role: – Irregular morphology might hinder derde ‘third’, and possibly eerste ‘first’ – But superlative morphology might help eerste ‘first’ (cf. Barbiers 2007) • Children should know to take just one card (ordinal  singular; cardinals higher than 1  plural) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 8

Com Comprehensi hension te test st: Gi Give X • Give ‐ a ‐ number, Give me, Give N, Give some pigs (e.g. Barner et al. 2013; Colomé & Noël 2012; Condry & Spelke, 2008; Huang, Spelke & Snedeker 2010; Le Corre & Carey, 2007; Le Corre, Li, & Jia, 2003; Le Corre, Van de Walle, Brannon, & Carey, 2006; Li, Le Corre, Shui, Jia, & Carey, 2003; Sarnecka & Gelman, 2004; Sarnecka, Kamenskaya, Yamana, Ogura, & Yudovina 2007; Wynn, 1990; Wynn, 1992; et cetera) • Outcome corresponds with other tasks that aim to measure cardinal comprehension (e.g. Le Corre et al. 2006, Le Corre & Carey 2007, Wynn 1992) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 9 14/ 54

Wh Who ca can help help the the mo monk nkey ey pack pack the the righ right thin things? October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 10

Desi Design gn • Cardinals & ordinals: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 8 (– 9) • Laatste, middelste (‘last’, ‘middel ‐ est’) • Degrees of comparison (e.g. groter ‘bigger’, grootste ‘ biggest’) • Each condition: x 3 • Total: 77 ‘packing events’, 2 trials • 2 sessions • Can you count to 20? October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 11

Pa Participants 3 ‐ year ‐ olds 4 ‐ year ‐ olds 5 & 6 yrs 31 26 20 N (F: 42.0% ) (F: 46.1%) (F: 59.9%) Age range 2;11 – 3;11 4;0 – 4;11 5;0 – 6;4 Mean 3;6 4;6 5;6 SD 3.5 months 3.1 months 5.13 months October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 12

Knower ‐ levels & counting CARDI CARDINALS ALS October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 13

Kn Knower ‐ le levels ls • To be an n‐knower, a child had to – give n correctly 2 out of 3 times, AND – give n in response to a different cardinal at most once. (e.g. Le Corre & Carey 2007) • Compared to model in Negen et al. (2012) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 14

Cardinals: Car inals: kno knower er ‐ le levels ls 3 ‐ year ‐ olds 4 ‐ year ‐ olds Level Le n CP ‐ knowers 36 4 ‐ knowers 16 3 ‐ knowers 1 2 ‐ knowers 12 1 ‐ knowers 9 Pre ‐ knowers 3 October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 15

WH WHAT ABOUT ABOUT ORDI ORDINALS? NALS? October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 16

Or Ordi dinal nal kno knower ers To be an nth‐knower, a child had to ‐ give the nth correctly 2 out of 3 times, AND ‐ give the nth in response to a different ordinal at most once. October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 17

% Corr Correct ect re responses to to or ordinals dinals by by knower kno er ‐ le level 100% 80% Pre ‐ to ‐ 3 ‐ knowers 60% 4 ‐ knowers 40% CP ‐ knowers 20% 0% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th & 9th October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 18

Degr Degrees ees of of co comp mparison: % co correct 97,20% 100,00% 95,12% 97,67% 96,67% 100% 87,64% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Comparatives Superlatives Comparatives Superlatives Comparatives Superlatives 3 ‐ year ‐ olds 4 ‐ year ‐ olds 5 ‐ & ‐ 6 ‐ year ‐ olds October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 19

Pre Pre ‐ to to ‐ 3: 3: first bi bias as nd – 9 on 2 nd – 9 th th % of of re responses on 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% correct first other (incorrect) last 1st 'passers' (47.6%) 1st 'failers' (52.4%) October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 20

Pre Pre ‐ to to ‐ 3: 3: not not a mes mess • Children were engaged: – Comparatives & superlatives were no problem – At least some cardinals went well • Exhibit some knowledge: – Children know to take just one card! (  SG/PL distinction) – Some children show a clear bias… October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 21

October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 22

If If yo you kno know the the n‐th , what what other other or ordi dinal nals do do yo you kno know? 100% 1st 90% % who pass on other stimuli 80% 2nd 70% 3rd 60% 50% 4th 40% 8th & 30% 9th 20% 10% 0% "1st ‐ knowers" "2nd ‐ knowers" "3rd ‐ knowers" "4th ‐ knowers" "8th & 9th ‐ knowers" Children who pass on given ordinals October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 23

• Knowing a given ordinal doesn’t guarantee knowledge of the previous ordinal. • Low before high • Derde ‘third’ is harder than tweede ‘second’ and vierde ‘fourth’ • Eerste ‘first’ not harder October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 24

Or Ordi dinal nal ‐ kno knower er pa patterns erns 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% 1st only 1st, 2nd, 1st ‐ 4th All but 3rd Other All 4th only Pre ‐ to ‐ 3 ‐ kowers 4 ‐ knowers CP ‐ knowers October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 25

Ques Question on If irregular morphology is to blame for derde ‘third’, why isn’t eerste ‘first’ hard, too?  Eerste is more frequent? But then what about tweede ?  Barbiers (2007): eerste is a superlative. • PL noun modification ( de eerste boeken, de meeste boeken) • –ste reduction ( dit stuk is het leukst(e)/het eerst(e)/*het achtst ) • Aller intensification ( allermooiste, allereerste, *allertweede ) • Regular degrees of comparison ( eer, eerder, eerst ) Well, then superlatives should be easy… And they are. October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 26

So… So… • Pre ‐ to ‐ three: – Just one card (sg/pl distinction) – First bias • High ordinals are hard for extra ‐ linguistic reasons • Derde ‘third’ is hard because it’s irregular • Eerste ‘first’ is an irregular ordinal, but a fine superlative October 17, 2015 LCQ 2015, Budapest 27