Summary information

Study title

Knowing How You Know: Toddlers Re-evaluate Words Learnt from an Unreliable Speaker, 2016-2019

Creator

Dautriche, I, CNRS; Université Aix-Marseille

Study number / PID

855111 (UKDA)

10.5255/UKDA-SN-855111 (DOI)

Data access

Open

Series

Not available

Abstract

There has been little investigation of the way source monitoring, the ability to track the source of one’s knowledge, may be involved in lexical acquisition. In two experiments, we tested whether toddlers (mean age 30 months) can monitor the source of their lexical knowledge and reevaluate their implicit belief about a word mapping when this source is proven to be unreliable. Experiment 1 replicated previous research (Koenig & Woodward, 2010): children displayed better performance in a word learning test when they learned words from a speaker who has previously revealed themself as reliable (correctly labeling familiar objects) as opposed to an unreliable labeler (incorrectly labeling familiar objects). Experiment 2 then provided the critical test for source monitoring: children first learned novel words from a speaker before watching that speaker labeling familiar objects correctly or incorrectly. Children who were exposed to the reliable speaker were significantly more likely to endorse the word mappings taught by the speaker than children who were exposed to a speaker who they later discovered was an unreliable labeler. Thus, young children can reevaluate recently learned word mappings upon discovering that the source of their knowledge is unreliable. This suggests that children can monitor the source of their knowledge in order to decide whether that knowledge is justified, even at an age where they are not credited with the ability to verbally report how they have come to know what they know.As anyone who has learnt a foreign language or travelled abroad will have noticed, languages differ in the sounds they employ, the names they give to things, and the rules of grammar. However, linguists have long observed that, beneath this surface diversity, all human languages share a number of fundamental structural similarities. Most obviously, all languages use sounds, all languages have words, and all languages have a grammar. More subtly and more surprisingly,...
Read more

Methodology

Data collection period

01/11/2016 - 27/11/2019

Country

United Kingdom

Time dimension

Not available

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

Not available

Sampling procedure

Not available

Kind of data

Numeric
Text

Data collection mode

Participants were recruited in nurseries around Edinburgh and in the lab using the University database. The sample size was determined based on Koenig and Woodward (2010) who tested 20 participants in each condition in a similar design (albeit with a different measure; Cohen’s d = 0.8). A power analysis based on this effect suggested that we should at least test 24 children per group to have a power of 80% at the 0.05 alpha level.Children were either tested in their nursery or in the lab. They sat on a small chair in front of a laptop with the experimenter sitting next to them. The experimenter greeted the child before introducing them to a game (the experiment). The accuracy of the speaker was not mentioned during the experiment. The experimenter avoided responding to any-task relevant comments the child might have said. The experiment consisted of 3 phases: the speaker exposure phase where a speaker was labelling familiar objects, the teaching phase where the speaker was teaching two novel words ("danu" and "modi") and the testing phase which included included a short video of a second reliable speaker and a succession of 16 trials: 8 test trials (as pictured, with the two novel objects on the screen) and 8 familiar trials (with two known objects on the screen). The critical difference between the conditions happened during the speaker exposure face: In the reliable condition, the speaker used the correct word to label the object she was playing with (e.g., calling a ball "ball"), however in the unreliable condition, the speaker used the wrong label (e.g., calling a ball "dog")

Funding information

Grant number

ES/N017404/1

Access

Publisher

UK Data Service

Publication year

2021

Terms of data access

The Data Collection is available from an external repository. Access is available via Related Resources.

Related publications

Not available