Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
-
Sander, J., Zhang, Y., & Rowland, C. F. (2025). Language acquisition occurs in multimodal social interaction: A commentary on Karadöller, Sümer and Özyürek [invited commentary]. First Language: advance online publication. doi:10.1177/01427237251326984.
Abstract
We argue that language learning occurs in triadic interactions, where caregivers and children engage not only with each other but also with objects, actions and non-verbal cues that shape language acquisition. We illustrate this using two studies on real-time interactions in spoken and signed language. The first examines shared book reading, showing how caregivers use speech, gestures and gaze coordination to establish joint attention, facilitating word-object associations. The second study explores joint attention in spoken and signed interactions, demonstrating that signing dyads rely on a wider range of multimodal behaviours – such as touch, vibrations and peripheral gaze – compared to speaking dyads. Our data highlight how different language modalities shape attentional strategies. We advocate for research that fully incorporates the dynamic interplay between language, attention and environment. -
Sander, J., Çetinçelik, M., Zhang, Y., Rowland, C. F., & Harmon, Z. (2024). Why does joint attention predict vocabulary acquisition? The answer depends on what coding scheme you use. In L. K. Samuelson, S. L. Frank, M. Toneva, A. Mackey, & E. Hazeltine (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2024) (pp. 1607-1613).Abstract
Despite decades of study, we still know less than we would like about the association between joint attention (JA) and language acquisition. This is partly because of disagreements on how to operationalise JA. In this study, we examine the impact of applying two different, influential JA operationalisation schemes to the same dataset of child-caregiver interactions, to determine which yields a better fit to children's later vocabulary size. Two coding schemes— one defining JA in terms of gaze overlap and one in terms of social aspects of shared attention—were applied to video-recordings of dyadic naturalistic toy-play interactions (N=45). We found that JA was predictive of later production vocabulary when operationalised as shared focus (study 1), but also that its operationalisation as shared social awareness increased its predictive power (study 2). Our results emphasise the critical role of methodological choices in understanding how and why JA is associated with vocabulary size. -
Sander, J., Lieberman, A., & Rowland, C. F. (2023). Exploring joint attention in American Sign Language: The influence of sign familiarity. In M. Goldwater, F. K. Anggoro, B. K. Hayes, & D. C. Ong (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2023) (pp. 632-638).Abstract
Children’s ability to share attention with another social partner (i.e., joint attention) has been found to support language development. Despite the large amount of research examining the effects of joint attention on language in hearing population, little is known about how deaf children learning sign languages achieve joint attention with their caregivers during natural social interaction and how caregivers provide and scaffold learning opportunities for their children. The present study investigates the properties and timing of joint attention surrounding familiar and novel naming events and their relationship to children’s vocabulary. Naturalistic play sessions of caretaker-child-dyads using American Sign Language were analyzed in regards to naming events of either familiar or novel object labeling events and the surrounding joint attention events. We observed that most naming events took place in the context of a successful joint attention event and that sign familiarity was related to the timing of naming events within the joint attention events. Our results suggest that caregivers are highly sensitive to their child’s visual attention in interactions and modulate joint attention differently in the context of naming events of familiar vs. novel object labels.
Share this page