Quantifying the syntactic bootstrapping effect in verb learning: A meta-analytic synthesis

How do children infer the meaning of a novel verb? One prominent proposal is that children rely on syntactic information in the linguistic context, a phenomenon known as “syntactic bootstrapping” (Naigles, 1990). For example, given the sentence “The bunny is gorping the duck”, a child could use knowledge of English syntactic roles to infer that “gorping” refers to an action where the bunny is acting in some way on a duck. Here, we examine the strength of the syntactic bootstrapping effect, its developmental trajectory and generalizability using meta-analytic methods. Across 60 experiments in the literature (N = 849 participants), we find a reliable syntactic bootstrapping effect (d = .24). Yet, despite its theoretical prominence, the syntactic bootstrapping effect is relatively small, comparable in size to cross-situational learning and sound symbolism, but smaller than mutual-exclusivity and gaze-following. Further, we find that the effect does not strengthen over development, and is present only for studies that use transitive sentences. An examination of a range of methodological factors suggests that the effect is not strongly influenced by methodological implementation. In the General Discussion, we consider implications of our findings for theories of verb learning and make recommendations for future research.

The Unifying Theory of Bootstrapping: The Collaboration of Multiple Language Acquisition Mechanisms

Scientists have long been exploring the possibility of Universal Grammar (UG), a linguistic gene that engenders our language acquisition process. What UG may comprise is debated: if semantics is innate, or syntax, or some other linguistic aspects. Moreover, no definitive evidence has surfaced to attest to its existence. Therefore, a first-language acquisition process without the prerequisite of UG is called for. In this paper, we tear apart the incompatibilities among different language acquisition hypotheses and combine them into a theory in which language learning does not require UG. We contend that a unification of the current hypotheses (i.e., pragmatic, prosodic, semantic, and syntactic bootstrapping) is substantial for first-language acquisition, and that scientists should be wary of oversimplifying matters with UG.

The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings

This chapter presents the theory of syntactic bootstrapping. It shows fundamental problems with a theory of verb learning based solely on observations of the external world. It then shows how these problems can be overcome if those experiences are paired with information about the syntactic structure of the clause that the verb occurs in.

Hard Words

This paper suggests that the chief limiting factor in acquiring a vocabulary of natural languages consists not in overcoming conceptual difficulties with abstract word meanings, but rather in mapping these meanings onto their corresponding lexical forms. We describe an overlapping series of steps through which novices move in representing the lexical forms and phrase structures of the exposure language, a probabilistic multiple-cue learning process known as syntactic bootstrapping.

Understanding How Input Matters

Studies under the heading of “syntactic bootstrapping” have demonstrated that syntax guides young children’s interpretations during verb learning. We evaluate two hypotheses concerning the origins of syntactic bootstrapping effects. The “universalist” view, holding that syntactic bootstrapping falls out from universal properties of the syntax-semantics mapping, is shown to be superior to the “emergentist” view, which holds that argument structure patterns emerge from a process of categorization and generalization over the input. These theories diverge in their predictions about a language in which syntactic structure is not the most reliable cue to a certain meaning. Experiments with Kannada speaking children and adults support the universalist view.

Finite complements trigger reality responses in attitude verb acquisition… but so do non-finite complements

The syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis was developed to explain how children learn verbs whose meanings are opaque, e.g. attitude verbs, which refer to the mental state of the subject of the sentence. Belief verbs (like think) take finite complements, while desire verbs (like want) take non-finite complements. Children differentiate these subclasses by three: they are lured by reality when there is a mismatch between the subject’s belief and reality when interpreting think, but not with want. Previous work also shows that when interpreting a less common attitude verb, hope, children are influenced by syntactic frame, supporting view that syntax guides children’s acquisition of attitude verbs. The current study investigates when syntax becomes useful to the learner. Children are presented with sentences including a novel verb with either a finite or a non-finite complement. Children are not influenced by syntax when interpreting a novel attitude verb, suggesting that syntactic complements only become useful for hypothesizing meaning once the learner has some experience with a specific attitude verb.