The role of speaker eye gaze and mutual exclusivity in novel word learning by monolingual and bilingual children

Abstract

The current study examined the combined effect of a speaker's eye gaze and mutual exclusivity (ME) on novel word retention in monolingual and bilingual children. A novel object was presented with a familiar object, and children were taught new labels for objects under two conditions. In the Align condition, the speaker's gaze and the ME cue provided the same information (the speaker looked at the novel object while labeling it with a novel name). In the Conflict condition, the speaker's gaze and the ME cue provided competing information (the speaker looked at the familiar object while labeling it with a novel name). Using a visual world eye-tracking paradigm, children's retention was assessed by testing novel objects with novel labels and by testing the familiar objects with novel labels. We found that all children successfully retained the novel labels for novel objects when both eye gaze and ME provided the same information. However, when the cues conflicted, bilingual children did not perform above chance for either novel objects or familiar objects. In contrast, monolingual children demonstrated retention of novel labels for familiar objects but not for novel objects. Together, the findings suggest that redundant cues benefit word retention in all children regardless of linguistic background. Furthermore, when speaker gaze and ME conflict, bilingual children appear to disregard both cues during retention, whereas monolingual children may be more willing to retain novel labels for familiar words, suggesting that they prioritize a speaker's eye gaze over ME.

Keywords: Bilingualism; Eye tracking; Mutual exclusivity; Retention; Speaker eye gaze; Word learning.

Figure 1:

Example of a teaching trial. Children were taught 3 new labels in each condition. Presentation of conditions was counterbalanced across children and object-word pairings were counterbalanced across conditions.

Figure 2.

Areas of interest (AOIs) for analyses of teach trials. All AOIs were exactly the same across conditions and analyses.

Figure 3a.

Time course (300–2000ms) of proportion looks to target for novel object test trials in each group. Solid lines represent observed means and surrounding ribbons represent standard errors. Dashed horizontal lines mark chance performance (0.50).

Figure 3b.

Growth curve estimates of looking probability for novel object test trials during analysis window. Solid lines represent model estimates and error bars represent standard errors. Dashed horizontal line marks chance (0 log-odds).

Figure 4a.

Time course (300–2000ms) of proportion looks to target for familiar object test trials in each group. Solid lines represent observed means and surrounding ribbons represent standard errors. Dashed horizontal lines mark chance performance (0.50).

Figure 4b.

Growth curve estimates of looking probability for familiar object test trials during analysis window. Solid lines represent model estimates and error bars represent standard errors. Dashed horizontal line marks chance (0 log-odds).