Skip to main content

How Infants Learn Word Meanings and Propositional Attitudes: A Neural Network Model

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 441 Accesses

Abstract

An influential proposal by the developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello is that infants only properly begin learning word meanings when they acquire the concept of a communicative action, which happens around the age of 12 months. While Tomasello advances interesting empirical evidence for this proposal, he does not make any suggestions about how communicative actions are represented in the infant brain, or about the mechanism through which an understanding of communicative actions facilitates word learning. In this chapter, I will present a neural network model of language and cognitive development which addresses both of these questions. The representations of communicative actions that the model learns (which have roughly the form X says that P) encode the propositional content of utterances in a novel way. I also discuss how these representations may serve as developmental precursors for more sophisticated propositional attitude representations such as X believes that P.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our simulation considers only content words: We do not consider the issue of how the meanings of function words are learned or how the infant learns the syntactic principles that map surface sequences of words with episode representations. But these issues are the focus of a separate neural network model (see Takac et al. 2012).

References

  • Averbeck, B., Chafee, M., Crowe, D., & Georgopoulos, A. (2002). Parallel processing of serial movements in prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(20), 13172–13177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D., Markman, E., Bill, B., Desjardins, R., Irwin, J., & Tidball, G. (1996). Infants’ reliance on a social criterion for establishing word-object relations. Child Development, 67, 3135–3153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D., Hayhoe, M., Pook, P., & Rao, R. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckner, R., & Wheeler, M. (2001). The cognitive neuroscience of remembering. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckner, R., Andrews-Hanna, J., & Schacter, D. (2008). The brain’s default network: Anatomy, function and relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterworth, G., & Jarrett, N. (1991). What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms for perspective taking in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caza, G., & Knott, A. (2012). Pragmatic bootstrapping: A neural network model of vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning and Development, 8, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science, 26, 609–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (Ed.). (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., Akhtar, N., & Reudor, A. (2004). Two-year-olds sensitivity to speakers’ intent: An alternative account of Samuelson and Smith. Developmental Science, 7(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquette, D. (Ed.). (2004). Brentano’s concept of intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knott, A. (2012). Sensorimotor cognition and natural language syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E., & Cohen, J. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In R. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague (pp. 247–270). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plate, T. (2003). Holographic reduced representations. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siskind, J. (1996). A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings. Cognition, 61(1-2), 39–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R., & Barto, A. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takac, M., & Knott, A. (2013). A neural network model of working memory for episodes. In M. Knauff (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1432–1437). Berlin: Curran Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takac, M., Benuskova, L., & Knott, A. (2012). Mapping sensorimotor sequences to word sequences: A connectionist model of language acquisition and sentence generation. Cognition, 125, 288–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2000). The social-pragmatic theory of word learning. Pragmatics, 10(4), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., & Herrmann, E. (2010). Ape and human cognition: What’s the difference? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Velde, F., & de Kamps, M. (2006). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 37–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, C., & Ballard, D. H. (2007). A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues. Neurocomputing, 70(13-15), 2149–2165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Meyers, E., Bichot, N., Serre, T., Poggio, T., & Desimone, R. (2011). Object decoding with attention in inferior temporal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108(21), 8850–8855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair Knott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this paper

Cite this paper

Knott, A. (2014). How Infants Learn Word Meanings and Propositional Attitudes: A Neural Network Model. In: Hung, TW. (eds) Communicative Action. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-84-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics