The Unforgettable "Mel": Pragmatic Inferences Affect How Children Acquire and Remember Word Meanings

Abstract

Children can acquire novel word meanings by using pragmatic cues. However, previous literature has frequently focused on in-the-moment word-to-meaning mappings, not delayed retention of novel vocabulary. Here, we examine how children use pragmatics as they learn and retain novel words. Thirty-three younger children (mean age: 5.0, range: 4.0-6.0, 21 girls; 85% White) and 33 older children (mean age: 7.5, range: 6.1-9.2, 16 girls, 66% White) participated. During learning, the sound-meaning mapping was either readily available (Direct Mapping condition) or required pragmatic inference (Inference condition). Children's word retention was tested immediately after learning and after 10-15 min of delay. Across both conditions, children performed similarly during learning. There were no significant differences between conditions for either immediate recall or retention in younger children. Importantly, retention (but not immediate recall) in older children demonstrated a significant advantage for the Inference over the Direct Mapping condition. Word retention in the Inference condition was predicted by age and mediated by children's ToM ability. We conclude that children can successfully acquire and retain meanings via pragmatic inference; moreover, the effects of active pragmatic computation on meaning retention grow with development. Such a developmental difference in meaning consolidation is possibly mediated by children's developing ToM skills.

Keywords: informativeness; pragmatics; scalar implicature; theory of mind; word learning.

FIGURE 1

Experimental procedure and stimulus examples. The figure demonstrates example practice, word learning (direct mapping/inferential), and immediate recall trials, as well as an example of the ToM and Executive Functioning (Flanker) task visual stimuli. Task order was as shown. Text in quotations would be spoken aloud.

FIGURE 2

Accuracy‐by‐condition for older versus younger children for immediate recall and retention. Points represent mean accuracy. Error bars represent within‐subject standard error. The horizontal dashed line at 0.25 represents chance.

FIGURE 3

Divergence of eye‐gaze during the novel word for the pragmatic inference condition. The time course across the top is in ms. Solid black points represent divergence points. Error bars represent 95% CI. The vertical dashed line at 0 marks word onset, and the solid vertical line represents the earliest saccade if triggered by word onset. Note that target and competitor proportions do not sum to one; this is because looks away, while not plotted here, are still factored into the relative fixation at any given timepoint.

FIGURE 4

Age versus retention accuracy by condition. Open circles represent individual direct mapping scores and filled circles Inference scores. The dashed line represents the linear regression line for direct mapping and the solid line the same information for inference. Only the latter is significant.

FIGURE 5

Mediation of the correlation between age and retention of pragmatically inferred words by ToM. (A) The total effect between age and inferred word retention was significant. (B) The direct effect of age on inferred word retention was no longer significant with ToM removed, while the indirect effect of age on inferred word retention via ToM was significant. Significance: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.