Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Infants’ use of syntactic cues to learn proper names and count nouns Bélanger, Julie 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0316.pdf [ 1.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089957.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089957-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089957-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089957-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089957-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089957-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089957-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089957-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089957.ris

Full Text

I N F A N T S ' U S E O F S Y N T A C T I C C U E S T O L E A R N P R O P E R N A M E S A N D C O U N T N O U N S by J U L I E B E L A N G E R B . A . , M c G i l l Universi ty , 1999 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Department o f Psychology) W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A June 2001 (c) Julie Belanger, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department DE-6 (2/88) Abstract T h e general purpose o f this study was to investigate infants' understanding o f objects as individuals and as category members by examining their understanding o f proper names and count nouns. Forty-eight infants participated in one o f two experiments. In both experiments, infants were taught a novel word for a stuffed animal presented o n a puppet stage. T h e novel w o r d was presented syntactically either as a proper name (e.g., " H e ' s called D A X Y " ) or as a count noun (e.g., " H e ' s called a D A X Y " ) . T h e animal was m o v e d to a new location o n the stage, and a second identical-looking animal was placed where the first toy was originally located. Infants were then asked to look at one o f the objects as a referent for the novel word. Infants' looking behaviour was recorded. A t 20 months (Experiment 1), but not at 16 months (Experiment 2), infants were more l ikely to look at the labeled object as a referent for the novel word i n a condition in w h i c h they heard a proper name than in either a condition in w h i c h they heard a count n o u n or a baseline condit ion in w h i c h they heard no word. B y 20 months o f age, infants thus used syntactic information to distinguish appropriately between proper names, referring to objects as individuals , and count nouns, referring to objects as category members. ii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract i i Table o f Contents i i i L is t o f Figures iv I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 E X P E R I M E N T 1 11 M e t h o d 11 Participants 11 St imuli 12 Apparatus 12 Procedure 12 Results and Discuss ion 14 E X P E R I M E N T 2 18 M e t h o d 18 Participants 18 St imuli 18 Apparatus 18 Procedure 18 Results and Discuss ion 18 G E N E R A L D I S C U S S I O N 21 References 26 Footnotes 29 iii Lis t o f Figures Figure 1 Procedure used in Experiments 1 and 2 30 Figure 2 20-month-olds ' mean proportions o f 1 s t looks to the unlabeled object f o l l o w i n g the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f the test question for each condition .31 Figure 3 16-month-olds' mean proportions o f 1 s t looks to the labeled object f o l l o w i n g the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f the test question for each condition 32 iv Introduction T h e ability to reason about a physical object (e.g., a cat) either as a category member (e.g., as a cat) or as an individual (e.g., as Fi f i ) is a central feature o f h u m a n cognition. M u c h o f our reasoning about objects involves treating them as category members. K n o w i n g an object's category membership is important because it enables us to draw inferences concerning that object. F o r example, i f an object belongs to the category "cat", we may infer that it is an animal with a set o f characteristic behaviours (e.g., eats f ish, meows, purrs, etc.). T h i n k i n g about objects in terms o f categories thus permits us to f o r m generalisations, w h i c h in turn are essential for inductive learning—a critical part o f our everyday lives ( B l o o m , 2000). O n the other hand, the capacity to think about objects as individuals is also an essential part o f our lives. Individuals are the entities that we enumerate and track through space and time. O u r feelings and emotions like love are generally tied to specific individual people, animals, and other objects, rather than to any interchangeable member o f a given category (Pinker, 1997). T h u s , h u m a n cognition requires the flexibility to think about a physical object either as a category member or as an individual . T h e difference between the interpretation o f objects as category members and that o f objects as individuals is reflected in the grammar o f most languages o f the wor ld (e.g., M a c n a m a r a , 1982). In E n g l i s h , there is one grammatical category whose members refer to objects as individuals (i.e., proper names) and another whose members refer to objects as category members (i.e., count nouns). 1 Syntactically, these grammatical categories behave differently. Count nouns can be used in conjunction with determiners (e.g., "the cat") and adjectives (e.g., " b i g cat"), and they can be pluralized (e.g., "cats"). In contrast, 1 proper names usually cannot be preceded by determiners (e.g., "the F i f i " is not grammatical) or adjectives (e.g., " b i g F i f i " is not grammatical), and they cannot be pluralized (e.g., " F i f i s " is not grammatical). T h e existence o f this syntactic distinction suggests that one approach to studying the development o f children's flexible understanding o f objects as category members and as individuals is to examine the development o f their understanding o f count nouns and proper names. T h i s is the goal o f the present research. Several studies have been conducted to investigate children's understanding o f proper names and count nouns. O n e o f the first investigations was carried out by K a t z , Baker , and M a c n a m a r a (1974; with additional data f r o m Macnamara , 1982). T h e y tested y o u n g children's understanding o f labels for animate toys (i.e., dolls). T h e children who participated i n K a t z et al. 's study were 17 to 24 months o f age, and those who participated i n Macnamara ' s study were 15 to 28 months o f age. C h i l d r e n were presented with a pair o f dolls differing in hair colour. T h e y then heard a novel w o r d paired with one o f the dolls. In one group, the label was presented syntactically as a proper name (e.g., " T h i s is Z A V " ) , and in the other group, the label was presented syntactically as a count noun (e.g., " T h i s is a Z A V " ) . U s i n g the novel label, the experimenter then asked the children to perform actions with one o f the dolls. F o r example, i n the Proper N a m e condition, the experimenter asked, " C a n y o u give me Z A V ? " and in the Count N o u n condition, the experimenter asked, " C a n y o u give me a Z A V ? " T h e results showed that children (girls as y o u n g as 17 months and boys as y o u n g as 28 months) were more l ikely to use the labeled dol l to perform the actions in the Proper N a m e condition than in the Count N o u n condition. In addition, in the Proper 2 N a m e condition, children showed a preference for the labeled dol l , but in the Count N o u n condition, they had no preference for either dol l . T h e authors concluded that the children used syntactic information (i.e., the presence or absence o f the determiner, "a") to decide i f the novel word was a proper name referring to the object as an individual , or a count noun p i c k i n g out the object as a category member. T o clarify children's interpretations o f the novel label in the preceding research, G e l m a n and T a y l o r (1984) replicated K a t z et al . 's study with a slightly different methodology. T h e y argued that children who showed no preference for either dol l in K a t z et al . 's (1974) and M a c n a m a r a ' s (1982) task could have interpreted the novel label as a count noun (i.e., they thought that the w o r d named a category such as doll) , or s imply could have responded by guessing (i.e., they did not k n o w w h i c h object to choose, and so they selected randomly) . T o determine w h i c h o f these two possibilities was accurate, G e l m a n and T a y l o r replicated K a t z et al. 's task, but they presented two animate toys along with two distracter items o f a different category. Chi ldren were on average 2 1/2 years o l d . G e l m a n and T a y l o r then labeled one o f the toys with a proper name or a count n o u n and asked children to perform simple actions with the labeled toy. If children chose only objects o f the same category and ignored the distracter items, it w o u l d suggest that they treated the w o r d as designating a category (i.e., treated it as a count noun). O n the other hand, i f children picked randomly among all four objects, it w o u l d suggest that they were guessing. G e l m a n and T a y l o r found that in the Proper N a m e condition, children chose the labeled toy most o f the time. In the Count N o u n condition, they chose one o f the two objects o f the same category most o f the time, ignoring the other two toys; they gave little evidence o f picking at chance among all four objects. These results are 3 consistent with the hypothesis that by 2 1/2 years, children understand that count nouns refer to objects as category members, whereas proper names refer to objects as individuals . Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993) raised a concern regarding the interpretability o f the results o f the preceding studies ( G e l m a n & Taylor , 1984; K a t z et al . , 1974; M a c n a m a r a , 1982). T h e y noted the problem that the labeled object i n these studies always possessed a salient property that differentiated it f r o m the unlabeled object (e.g., the labeled dol l had blonde hair whereas the unlabeled dol l had brown hair). Because o f this fact, children's choice o f the labeled object could have been motivated by more than one interpretation. O n e possibility is that the children interpreted the novel w o r d as labeling the object as an individual (e.g., M a r y ) . However , Liittschwager and M a r k m a n noted that it is also possible that such a choice reflected an interpretation o f the novel w o r d as an adjective designating the salient property (e.g., blonde). T h e syntactic context o f proper names and adjectives does not distinguish them, since both proper names and adjectives m a y be used in sentences without a determiner (e.g., " T h i s is M a r y " and " T h i s is blonde") . In addition, it is noteworthy that the possibility that the children interpreted the novel w o r d as referring to a restricted category (e.g., blonde dolls) also could not be ruled out by the results o f the previous studies ( G e l m a n & Taylor , 1984; K a t z et al . , 1974; M a c n a m a r a , 1982). T o remove the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation that could be assigned to children's performance, Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993) conducted a new study i n w h i c h they presented 3-year-olds with an animate object (e.g., a stuffed bear) that possessed a distinctive marker (e.g., the bear was wearing a bib). T h e object was labeled 4 with a novel proper name or a novel count noun (e.g., " T h i s is D a x " or " T h i s is a dax") . A f t e r introducing the new word, the experimenter m o v e d the labeled object to a new location and removed the distinctive marker. A n identical-looking object was then placed in the location where the first object had been placed originally. Because the distinctive marker had been removed, both objects were n o w identical. U s i n g the new w o r d , the experimenter asked the chi ld to choose an object (e.g., " W h e r e ' s D a x ? " or " W h e r e ' s a dax?"). T h e results were consistent with those o f K a t z et al . (1974) and G e l m a n and T a y l o r (1984): the children in the Proper N a m e condition chose the labeled object most o f the time, whereas the children in the Count N o u n condition chose either object roughly equally as often. T h u s , Liittschwager and M a r k m a n provided less ambiguous evidence than the previous studies that children can distinguish between proper names and count nouns and understand that these lexical categories are used to refer to individuals and categories, respectively. Sorrentino (1999) argued that Liittschwager and M a r k m a n ' s (1993) results were still subject to an ambiguity o f interpretation. She noted that in Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993), it was still possible that children may have interpreted the new label as referring to a property (e.g., bib-wearing) or to a restricted category (e.g., bears wearing a bib). Because Liittschwager and M a r k m a n removed the marker f r o m the object w h e n they m o v e d it to the second location, children were faced with two objects, neither o f w h i c h may have satisfied a property interpretation (e.g., bib-wearing) or a restricted category interpretation (e.g., bears wearing a bib). In these cases, children may have chosen the labeled object s imply because it was the only object that had been labeled previously with the new word. T o remove this ambiguity, Sorrentino presented 3 1/2-5 year-old children with an animate object possessing a distinctive marker. A s i n Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993), she labeled it with a novel count noun or proper name; placed it i n another location; removed the salient marker; and introduced another identical- looking animate object in the location where the first object had been originally placed. T h e m a i n difference between Sorrentino's study and Liittschwager and M a r k m a n ' s (1993) study was that after Sorrentino removed the salient marker f r o m the first object, she placed it on the unlabeled object. Sorrentino (1999) reasoned that i f the children interpreted the new label as referring to a salient property or to a restricted category i n v o l v i n g the salient property, they should have chosen the unlabeled object. Sorrentino found that in the Proper N a m e condition, children largely chose the labeled object rather than the object with the salient property. T h i s was thus a clear demonstration that children interpreted a novel proper name as referring to an individual rather than to a property or a restricted category. T h e results reported by Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993) and Sorrentino (1999) provided clearer evidence than earlier studies o f children's appropriate understanding o f proper names and count nouns. However , it should be noted that Liittshwager and M a r k m a n (1993) and Sorrentino (1999) used participants who were at least 2 years older o n average than the ones tested in the original study by K a t z et al . (1974). In addition, Liittschwager and M a r k m a n (1993) and Sorrentino (1999) d i d not investigate further the gender difference that was found by K a t z et al . (1974) (i.e., the f inding that girls succeeded at the task approximately 1 year before the boys) . T o investigate children's learning o f proper names and count nouns under the age o f 3, and to address the issue o f gender differences, we ( H a l l , Lee , & Belanger, 2001) conducted a series o f six 6 experiments using a m o d i f i e d version o f Liittschwager and M a r k m a n ' s (1993) procedure. W e were interested in investigating whether younger children - boys and girls -represent proper names and count nouns in the same way as 3-year-olds, or whether they interpret them in a different way at first, and then later develop an understanding that is closer to that o f 3-year-olds and adults. In the first four experiments o f H a l l et al . (2001), children between the ages o f 20 and 37 months were presented with a pair o f surrogate animate toys (e.g., boy dolls , girl dolls , bears, or dogs). In these experiments, no distinctive properties distinguished the toys at any time. O n e object was labeled with either a proper name (e.g., " T h i s is Z A V " ) or a count n o u n (e.g., " T h i s is a Z A V " ) . T h e sentence was repeated five times, after w h i c h the labeled object was m o v e d to another location a few centimetres to the left or the right. T h e other identical-looking toy was then placed o n the table, where the first object had been placed originally. U s i n g the novel label, we then asked children to choose one o f the toys (e.g., " W h e r e ' s Z A V ? " or " W h e r e ' s a Z A V ? " ) . T h e results f rom these four studies showed that girls as young as 24 months and boys as y o u n g as 37 months were more l ikely to choose the labeled toy i n the Proper N a m e condition than i n the Count N o u n condition. T h e girls were therefore able to distinguish between proper names and count nouns 15 to 19 months earlier than in previous studies (i.e., Liit tschwager & M a r k m a n , 1993; Sorrentino, 1999). W e also noted that, as K a t z et al . (1974) had found previously, boys were able to distinguish between count nouns and proper names appropriately approximately 1 year later than girls. T h e findings suggest that children's ability to distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns may emerge around 24 months. T h e results also raise the question o f whether the year 7 difference between girls and boys represented younger b o y s ' inability to use syntactic cues to differentiate between proper names and count nouns or whether it reflected an ability that was s imply more fragile than in girls. T o address this question, we ( H a l l et al . , 2001) conducted two further experiments with a slightly different methodology. In our fifth experiment, we tested 23-month-old boys by providing a richer and more elaborate linguistic and non-linguistic context for learning the novel word. There were four m a i n differences between the methodology in this study and the one used in Experiments 1 to 4: (1) we reduced the number o f trials f r o m four to one; (2) we increased the number o f different sentence frames i n w h i c h we taught the novel w o r d ; (3) we made the teaching interactive by having children perform actions i n response to requests using the novel label ; and finally, (4) we attempted to elicit the novel w o r d f r o m the children. W i t h this increased exposure to the new word , 23-month-old boys were able to differentiate appropriately between proper names and count nouns. In the Proper N a m e condition, boys restricted the new w o r d to the labeled object significantly more often than they did in the Count N o u n condition. T h i s was the first demonstration that 2-year-old boys - like 2-year-old girls in our earlier experiment -could distinguish between proper names and count nouns. In a sixth and final experiment, we used the same procedure to test younger girls (i.e., 20-month-olds) to see whether they too could succeed o n it. However , the girls in this experiment d i d not choose the labeled object more often in the Proper N a m e condition than in the Count N o u n condition. T h i s result suggests that they were unable to use the syntactic cues to distinguish proper names and count nouns, and that they treated these two lexical categories i n a similar way. 8 T h e results o f H a l l et al . (2001) establish clearly that by the age o f 23 or 24 months, but not at 20 months, both boys and girls can distinguish appropriately between the grammatical categories o f proper name and count noun. However , these results leave open the question o f h o w to explain even younger children's understanding o f proper names and count nouns. There are reports o f children using proper names consistently to refer to an individual such as a person or a pet and o f their using count nouns to refer to categories as y o u n g as 16 months o f age (e.g., Macnamara , 1982). In addition, the evidence reported in K a t z et al . (1974) suggests that 17-month-old girls can distinguish between proper names and count nouns. What is the nature o f y o u n g children's understanding o f these lexical categories? A r e they represented the same way in the m i n d o f a y o u n g 16- or 17-month-old as in the m i n d o f a 24-month-old or an adult? If they are, it raises the possibility that the methods used up to n o w underestimated chi ldren ' ability to distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns under the age o f 2 years. It is possible that the task o f actively choosing an object is too difficult for younger children to perform. T o address the difficulties i n v o l v e d in assessing infant language and cognition, several types o f methodologies have been pioneered to study infant language and cognition. If younger children have a distinct and appropriate understanding o f proper names and count nouns, we might be able to demonstrate it by using one o f these methodologies. O n e way to reduce the demands o n the chi ld in the task used in H a l l et al . (2001) w o u l d be to use the chi ld 's looking behaviour as a dependent measure rather than the chi ld ' s action o f choosing a toy. In the current study, 20-month-old infants (Experiment 1) and 16-month-old infants (Experiment 2) were taught a new label for an object, as they 9 were i n Experiments 5 and 6 o f H a l l et al. (2001). However , instead o f having to choose manually one o f the two identical toys after tracking it through space, infants only had to look at the toy that they thought was the referent o f the new label. Infants were first presented with an animate surrogate (i.e., a stuffed animal) o n the left or right side o f a puppet stage. A new label presented syntactically as a proper name (e.g., " D A X Y " ) was then given to one group o f infants and it was offered as a count noun (e.g., " a D A X Y " ) to a second group o f infants. T h e toy was then slowly m o v e d to the other end o f the table. A second identical- looking toy was then placed i n the position where the first toy had been placed originally, and infants were asked to look at a toy (e.g., " W h e r e ' s D A X Y ? " or " W h e r e ' s a D A X Y ? " ) . Chi ldren ' s looking behaviour was measured. W e also tested a third group o f infants to assess baseline looking preferences in this task. T h e infants in this third group were presented with a similar puppet show, but they d i d not hear a novel label paired with the object. O u r three predictions were the fo l lowing : First, infants should have looked at the labeled toy more often w h e n they heard the toy labeled with a proper name than w h e n they heard it labeled with a count noun. T h e rationale for this prediction is that w h e n the toy was labeled with a proper name, the labeled toy should have been treated as the only referent o f the new label. O n the other hand, when the toy was labeled with a count noun, both toys should have been seen as acceptable referents for the new label. Second, infants should have looked at the labeled toy equally often w h e n they heard the toy labeled with a count n o u n and when they heard it marked with no label. W h e n infants did not hear a novel word, their looking behaviour should have indicated their baseline looking preferences, and this behaviour should have been the same as their behaviour 10 w h e n they heard a novel count n o u n - in both cases, looking at either object was acceptable. O u r third prediction was that infants should have shown a general preference for looking at the unlabeled toy, because it was the last toy to be presented on the puppet stage, and it should therefore have attracted the infants' attention more than the labeled object. In sum, we conducted two experiments involv ing 20- and 16-month-old infants. W e used a m o d i f i e d version o f the task used in H a l l et al . (2001), adapted so that the dependent measure was children's looking behaviour rather than their reaching and retrieving. B y relieving children o f the requirement to choose actively one or both objects, we expected that our new task w o u l d offer a more sensitive measure o f y o u n g children's understanding o f proper names and count nouns than the original version. Experiment 1 M e t h o d Participants. Participants i n this study were 24 infants (12 girls and 12 boys), ranging in age f r o m 18 to 22 months ( M = 20.1 months). A l l participants had been exposed to E n g l i s h as their first language and had not been exposed to another language more than 20% o f the time (as reported by parents). E q u a l numbers were assigned to the C o u n t N o u n ( C N ) condition ( M = 19.7 months; S D = 1.2 months), the Proper N a m e (PN) condition (M = 20.1 months; S D = 1.4 months), and the N o W o r d ( N W ) condition (M = 20.7 months; S D = 1.6 months). A n additional 12 infants were tested, but excluded because they failed to complete the task ( N = 9) or because o f experimental error ( N = 3)L Infants were recruited through advertisements placed in papers and pamphlets given out at family events in the local community . 11 Stimuli . F o u r pairs o f identical-looking stuffed animals were used (i.e., ducks, fish, bears, and dogs). T h e animals ' heights were 13 c m , 10.5 c m , 15 c m , and 16 c m respectively. These animals were used because o f the high l ikel ihood o f the occurrence o f their category labels (i.e., the words " d u c k " , " f i s h " , "bear" , and " d o g " ) in 20-month-olds ' productive vocabularies (Dale & Fenson, 1996). Apparatus. T h e apparatus consisted o f a black wooden puppet stage placed o n a large table covered with a black tablecloth. B l a c k curtains were attached to the back and the sides o f the stage so that the infant could not see the first experimenter ( E l ) who sat behind the stage. T w o small desk lamps (40 W ) were placed on each side o f the stage to illuminate the area where the objects were presented. T h e lamps were connected to extension cords and to a power bar located in a different part o f the r o o m , f r o m w h i c h a second experimenter (E2) was able to control the lights. Another light (40 W ) was placed o n each side o f the stage, to illuminate the infant's face. O n e hidden video camera was placed under the stage to record the infant's looking behaviour. Another video camera was placed behind the chi ld and the parent, facing the stage, and recorded what was happening o n the stage. A video mixer (Videonics M X 1 ) connected to both cameras sent both images simultaneously to a single television screen (split screen) located where E 2 was sitting. Procedure. Before the study began, E 2 explained the procedure, stressing the importance for the parents o f keeping their eyes closed during the experiment and o f refraining f r o m m o v i n g and talking as m u c h as possible. These precautions were attempts to prevent any inadvertent influence o f the parent o n the chi ld 's looking behaviour. 12 T h e experiment took place in a r o o m that was dark except for the lights o n each side o f the stage. C h i l d r e n sat o n their parent's lap facing the puppet stage, at a distance o f 1.15 m f r o m the stage. E 2 began the study by turning the stage lights on to indicate the start o f the first trial. E l then presented a pair o f identical-looking stuffed animals on the stage. E l attracted the chi ld 's attention by saying, " L o o k at them! T h e y look the same! " and then removed both toys f rom the stage (see Figure 1, Step A ) . E l then introduced the new label i n the P N and C N conditions: she showed one o f the toys o n the right or the left side o f the stage (counterbalanced) (see Figure 1, Step B ) , and she then read f r o m a script i n w h i c h the novel label was presented syntactically as a proper name (script version 1) or as a count noun (script version 2) in a series o f different sentence frames. In a third version o f the script, no novel label was used ( N W condition). In the P N condition, the script began as fol lows: " L o o k at h i m ! H e is called D A X Y ! A n d do y o u k n o w what? D A X Y loves to j u m p ! H e ' s called D A X Y ! A n d w h e n D A X Y is tired, he likes to sleep and snore. D A X Y is very f r iendly . " T h e n E l s lowly m o v e d the toy to the other end o f the stage (92 c m away) while attracting the chi ld 's attention by saying, " L o o k here !" (see Figure 1, Step C ) . A second identical-l o o k i n g toy was then placed in the position where the first toy had been placed originally (see Figure 1, Step D ) , and E l attracted the chi ld 's attention to it by saying, " L o o k here! L o o k here ! " E l then removed her hands f r o m the stage and said, " W h e r e is D A X Y ? L o o k at D A X Y ! Where is D A X Y ? " waiting 5 seconds between each prompt. E 2 then turned the stage lights o f f to mark the end o f the first trial. F i v e seconds later, the lights were turned back on, and a second trial began with a different pair o f toys and a different label. T h e same procedure was repeated for the third and fourth trials. 13 In the C N condition, the same procedure was used, but the label was presented syntactically as a count noun (e.g., with a determiner). Infants heard the f o l l o w i n g script: " L o o k at h i m ! H e is called a D A X Y ! A n d do y o u k n o w what? T h i s D A X Y loves to j u m p ! H e ' s called a D A X Y ! A n d when this D A X Y is tired, he likes to sleep and snore. T h i s D A X Y is very f r iendly . " A t the end o f the trial, infants were asked, " W h e r e is a D A X Y ? L o o k at a D A X Y ! Where is a D A X Y ? " F inal ly , i n the N W condition, infants heard a similar script that contained no novel label : " L o o k at h i m ! L o o k at h i m ! A n d do y o u k n o w what? H e loves to j u m p ! L o o k at h i m ! A n d w h e n he is tired, he likes to sleep and snore. H e is very f r iendly . " A t the end o f the trial, E l said, " L o o k ! L o o k ! L o o k ! " Infants had to complete at least two trials out o f four to be included in our final sample. A trial was defined as successfully completed i f the infant looked at either the labeled or unlabeled object fo l lowing at least two out o f the three prompts. T h e novel words were " D A X Y " for the duck, " Z A V Y " for the dog, " B L I C K Y " for the bear, and " F E P P Y " for the fish. T h e order o f presentation o f the animals was counterbalanced, as was the labeled toy's location on the stage (left or right). Results and D i s c u s s i o n A s mentioned earlier, our first prediction was that i f infants o f this age distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns, they should have looked at the labeled toy more frequently in the P N condition than in the C N condition. A l s o , we predicted that there w o u l d be no difference between the looking behaviour o f the infants i n the C N condition and those in the N W condition. F inal ly , we expected to f ind a 14 novelty preference; that is, we expected infants generally to look at the unlabeled object more often than the labeled object. W e recorded the infants' looking behaviour (i.e., whether the infant looked at the labeled or unlabeled object) fo l lowing the onset o f the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f our test question in the P N and C N conditions. In the N W condition, we recorded infants' looking behaviour fo l lowing the onset o f the first phoneme o f the w o r d " l o o k " , because there was no noun phrase in this prompt. W e recorded the looking behaviour f r o m this point because o f evidence that 18- to 24-month-old infants process verbal information rapidly and recognise words based o n incomplete acoustic information (e.g., Fernald, Pinto, Swingley , Weinberg , & M c R o b e r t s , 1998). A primary coder coded the infants' looking behaviour fo l lowing each o f the three prompts within each trial, for a total o f 12 eye gaze responses for four trials. A second coder, bl ind to the condition, independently coded the videotapes o f ha l f the children selected randomly. Overa l l consistency between coders was 81%. W h e n there were discrepancies between the scores o f the two coders, the scores o f the first coder were retained for analyses. There was no systematic inconsistency between coders. T o begin, we examined whether there was a difference between the numbers o f trials completed by the infants in each condition. A one-way analysis o f variance ( A N O V A ) showed no difference between the number o f trials completed in the P N condition ( M = 3.75; S D = 0.46), the C N condition ( M = 3.75; S D = 0.46), and the N W condit ion (M = 3.63; S D = 0.74), F (2, 21) = .13, p = .88. W e then turned to our first two predictions. A 3 x 2 A N O V A was performed with C o n d i t i o n ( P N , C N , and N W ) and Gender (male and female) as between-participant 15 factors. T h e dependent measure was the mean proportion o f the four trials o n w h i c h infants looked at the labeled object first fo l lowing our prompts. W e used the mean proportion o f trials rather than individual trials in order to get a more accurate measure for each subject because individual trials were sometimes more variable. See Figure 2. W e included gender as a factor in our analyses because previous studies have found gender effects, with girls showing an earlier differentiation o f proper names and count nouns than boys ( H a l l et al . , 2001; K a t z et al . , 1974; Macnamara , 1982). T h i s analysis yielded a significant m a i n effect o f Condi t ion , F (2,18) = 4.33, p = .03, but no significant m a i n effect o f Gender , F (1,18) = .10, p = .75, and no significant C o n d i t i o n x Gender interaction, F (2,18) = 1.66, p = .22. Consistent with our first prediction, N e w m a n - K e u l s multiple comparisons showed that the proportion o f first looks to the labeled object i n the P N condition ( M = .53, S D = .15) was significantly higher than that in the C N condition ( M = .32, S D = .17), £ (18) = 3.77, p = .04. A l s o , i n support o f our second prediction, there was no difference between the proportion o f first looks to the labeled object in the C N condition ( M = -32, S D = .17) and the N W condition ( M = -34, S D = .17), g (18) = 0.38, p = .79. In addition, the proportion o f first looks to the labeled object was significantly greater i n the P N condit ion ( M = .53, S D = .15) than i n the N W condition ( M = .34, S D = .17), g (18) = 3.40, p < . 0 5 . W e then explored the consistency o f infants' looking at the labeled object across trials. W e classified participants as being consistent lookers at the labeled object i f they looked at the labeled object fo l lowing more than 0.50 o f the prompts (out o f 12 possible prompts). A C h i Square test on the resulting numbers ( N = 5 in the P N condition; N = 1 16 in the C N condit ion; N = 0 in the N W condition) yielded a significant effect o f C o n d i t i o n ; % 2 (2) = 9.33, p = .01. T h i s result also supports our first two predictions: more infants i n the P N condition than in the C N condition looked consistently at the labeled object and almost equal numbers o f infants i n the C N condition and N W condition looked consistently at the labeled object. T o address our third prediction - that infants w o u l d show a novelty preference for the unlabeled object - one-tailed single-sample t-tests were performed to compare the proportion o f looks to the labeled object in each condition to chance. F o r these analyses, we defined chance as 0.50 because o n each trial, infants looked at one o f two possible objects. One-tai led tests were used because we predicted that infants w o u l d look at the labeled object less often than w o u l d be predicted by chance alone, due to an expected novelty preference. T h e results revealed that infants looked at the labeled object significantly less often than chance both i n the N W condition, t (7) = -2.69, p = .02, and i n the C N condition, t (7) = -3.04, p = .01. These results suggest that, as predicted, infants had a preference for looking at the unlabeled object. In the P N condition, however, infants d i d not look at the labeled object less often than chance, t (7) = .64, p = .28, suggesting that the use o f the proper name tended to draw the infants' attention away f r o m the novel object and back to the previously labeled object. In sum, the results o f this experiment showed that 20-month-old infants can use syntactic cues (i.e., the presence or absence o f a determiner) to determine i f a novel w o r d is a proper name, referring to an individual , or a count noun, referring to a category. Reca l l that previous research has failed to f ind this ability in 20-month-old children using a methodology in w h i c h children were required to actively choose an object ( H a l l et al . , 17 2001). T h e present results are therefore a new contribution to the literature. However , these findings led us to wonder whether we could f ind evidence for this ability using our new methodology with even younger infants. In Experiment 2, we thus tested 16-month-o l d infants o n the same task as in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 M e t h o d Participants. Participants in Experiment 2 were 24 infants (12 girls and 12 boys) , ranging i n age f r o m 14 to 18 months (M = 15.6 months). E q u a l numbers were assigned to the C N condit ion ( M = 15.7 months; S D = .9 months), the P N condition (M = 15.8 months; S D =1.1 months) and the N W condition (M = 15.3 months; S D = .8 months). A n additional three infants were tested, but excluded because they failed to complete the task. Participants were recruited as in Experiment 1. St imuli . These were the same as in Experiment 1. Apparatus. T h i s was the same as in Experiment 1. Procedure. T h i s was the same as i n Experiment 1. Results and D i s c u s s i o n O u r predictions were the same as in Experiment 1: i f infants this age distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns, (1) they should look at the labeled toy more frequently in the P N condition than in the C N condition, therefore treating the labeled toy as an individual ; and (2) they should look at the labeled toy equally often in the C N condition and i n the N W condition. W e also predicted that infants w o u l d look at the unlabeled object more often than the labeled object, because the unlabeled object was 18 the last object to be presented o n the puppet stage and so should have drawn attention and interest. T h e same procedure as in Experiment 1 was fo l lowed in coding the videotapes. H o w e v e r , in addition to coding for whether infants looked at the labeled or unlabeled object after the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f the test question, we also coded for whether infants looked at the labeled or unlabeled object fo l lowing the last phoneme o f the n o u n phrase o f the test question. W e conducted this alternate coding because some recent evidence suggests that 15-month-old children (unlike 18- to 24-month-olds) demonstrate w o r d recognition only after hearing the end o f the w o r d (Fernald et al . , 1998). W e performed a paired-sample t-test to compare the infants' proportion o f looks to the labeled object using these two methods o f coding. T h e t-test revealed no significant difference between the two sets o f scores, t (23) = -1.69, p = .10. W e therefore w i l l report analyses based on the first coding o f the data only (i.e., the looking behaviour recorded after the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f the test question, as in Experiment 1). Overa l l consistency between coders was 88%. W h e n there were discrepancies between the scores o f the two coders, the scores o f the first coder were retained for analyses. There was no systematic inconsistency between coders. T o begin, we examined whether there was a difference between the numbers o f trials infants completed in each condition. A one-way A N O V A suggested no difference between the number o f completed trials in the P N condition ( M = 3.38; S D = .74), the C N condition ( M = 3.75; S D = .71), and the N W condition ( M = 3.75; S D = .46), F (2, 2 1 ) = . 8 9 , p = . 4 3 . 19 T o address our first two predictions, we then examined whether there were differences in the number o f times infants looked at the labeled object in each condition. A s in Experiment 1, a 3 x 2 A N O V A was performed with C o n d i t i o n ( P N , C N , and N W ) and Gender (male and female) as between-participant factors. T h e dependent measure was again the mean proportion o f four trials o n w h i c h infants looked at the labeled object first f o l l o w i n g our prompt. See Figure 3. T h i s analysis yielded no significant m a i n effect o f C o n d i t i o n , F (2,18) = .32, p = .73, no effect o f Gender , F (1,18) = .06, p = .81, and no interaction, F (2,18) = .17, p = .85. Therefore, contrary to our first prediction, there was no difference between the mean proportions o f trials on w h i c h infants looked at the labeled object in the P N condition ( M = -33; S D = .14) and in the C N condition ( M = -38; S D = .15). Consistent with our second prediction, however, there was no difference between the mean proportions o f trials on w h i c h infants looked at the labeled object i n the C N condition (M = -38; S D = .15) and in the N W condition ( M = -32; S D = .13). In addition, the proportion o f first looks to the labeled object was similar i n the P N condition ( M = -33, S D = .14) and i n the N W condition ( M = -32, S D = .13). A s in Experiment 1, we next classified participants as being consistent labeled object lookers i f they looked at the labeled object fo l lowing more than 0.50 o f the prompts (out o f a possible 12 prompts). There was no difference between the numbers o f infants who looked consistently at the labeled object in the P N condition ( N = 1), in the C N condition ( N = 1), or in the N W condition ( N = 1). A g a i n , our first prediction (that infants w o u l d look at the labeled object more often in the P N condition than i n the C N condition) was not supported. However , these results again supported our second 20 prediction - there was no difference between the looking behaviour o f the infants in the C N condition and the N W condition. T o address our third prediction - that infants w o u l d show a novelty preference for the unlabeled object - one-tailed single-sample t-tests were performed to compare the proportion o f looks to the labeled object in each condition (i.e., P N , C N , and N W ) to chance, chance again being defined as 0.50. T h e results revealed that infants looked at the labeled object significantly less often than w o u l d be expected by chance in all three conditions: N W condition, t (7) = -3.84, p = .003, in the P N condition, t (7) = -3.51, p = .005, and i n the C N condition, t (7) = -2.35, g = .03. These results suggests infants had a general preference for looking at the unlabeled object in every condition, and that the use o f the proper name d i d not lead to a weakening o f their preference for looking at the unlabeled object. In sum, the results o f this experiment revealed no evidence that 16-month-old infants can use syntactic cues (i.e., the presence or absence o f a determiner) to interpret a novel w o r d as a proper name, referring to an individual , or as a count noun, referring to a category. General Discuss ion T h i s research has focused o n the early development o f children's understanding o f objects as individuals and as category members by examining the emergence o f their understanding o f proper names and count nouns. W e investigated whether the use o f a methodology that relieved infants o f the need to chose an object actively as a referent o f a novel label w o u l d lead to evidence o f an understanding o f proper names and count nouns at a younger age than previously reported in the literature (e.g., G e l m a n & Taylor , 1984; 21 H a l l et al . , 2001; Liittschwager & M a r k m a n , 1993; Sorrentino, 1999). O u r findings provide the first clear indication that by 20 months, but not at 16 months, infants map novel proper names onto individual objects significantly more often than novel count nouns. V e r y few other studies in the literature have investigated the emergence o f a sensitivity to f o r m class distinction in infants under 2 years o f age. However , the results o f the present research are consistent with that o f W a x m a n and M a r k o w (1998) who reported that 21-month-old infants were more likely to choose objects on the basis o f their properties w h e n they heard a novel adjective than when they heard no w o r d or a novel noun. A l t h o u g h these findings reveal an earlier understanding o f proper names and count nouns than previously reported, they leave open the question o f the nature o f infant's understanding o f proper names and count nouns prior to 20 months o f age. M a c n a m a r a and his colleagues (Katz et al . , 1974; Macnamara , 1982) have reported experimental and anecdotal evidence o f proper name understanding at 16 or 17 months o f age. A l s o , it is w e l l k n o w n that proper names and count nouns emerge i n children's productive vocabularies quite early and are among their first words (e.g., Gentner, 1982, and N e l s o n , 1973, both reported the presence o f proper names in the productive vocabularies o f 13-month-old infants). F o r example, h o w do children interpret proper names earlier than 20 months o f age? First, it is possible that infants do not represent proper names as designating individuals before 20 months o f age, but rather that they represent proper names i n the same way as count nouns. Some researchers have argued that infants' earliest w o r d representations are l inked to categories, regardless o f the word 's lexical class (e.g., W a x m a n , 1994). However , the anecdotal and experimental 22 evidence reported by M a c n a m a r a (Katz et al . , 1974; Macnamara , 1982) suggests that these two categories are represented differently by 16 or 17 months o f age. Second, it is possible is that infants represent proper names differently than count nouns, but not as denoting individual objects - for example, perhaps they designate properties or restricted categories as discussed by Sorrentino (1999). One way o f testing the plausibility o f this second possibility w o u l d be to replicate the current study (Experiment 2) using the same methodology, but with pairs o f objects that are distinguished by a salient property, as in K a t z et al . (1974). If infants restrict the referent o f a novel proper name to an individual distinguished f r o m another member o f the same category by a salient marker - that is, i f they look at the labeled object more than at the unlabeled object - it w o u l d suggest that y o u n g infants (16-month-olds) interpret proper names as denoting properties or restricted categories, rather than as denoting individuals. These first two possibilities w o u l d suggest a discontinuity in lexical-semantic development: infants' first representations o f proper names w o u l d be different f rom the representations o f adults or even 20-month-olds. These representations w o u l d then undergo some sort o f (as yet) unspecified change to y i e l d the mature representations. H o w e v e r , there is a third possibility: it is possible that even infants younger than 20 months o f age represent proper names as distinct f rom count nouns, in a way that is essentially similar to that o f older children and adults, that is, as marking individual objects. Consistent with this possibility, there is other evidence f rom W a x m a n and her colleagues ( W a x m a n , 1999) that indicates that in a type o f habituation task, infants as y o u n g as 13 to 14 months appear to appreciate the distinction between words presented as adjectives and count nouns. T o test the plausibility o f this third possibility, we could 23 try to make the current methodology more sensitive for use with younger infants. F o r example, we could conduct a modif ied replication o f the current study with objects such as dolls , rather than stuffed animals. Perhaps stuffed animals do not represent surrogate animate objects for younger children. It is possible that toys such as dolls (or alternatively, real, l iv ing people) w o u l d be better candidates for receiving proper names, because only people are seen as l ikely candidates for receiving proper names. Another way to test whether younger infants can succeed at appropriately distinguishing between proper names and count nouns w o u l d be to use a similar methodology to the one used in the present research, but one that w o u l d not create a novelty preference for the unlabeled object. In other words, it is possible that the novelty bias evident in the current experiments was too strong for the younger infants to overcome in the presence o f the novel label presented as a proper name. O n e way o f reducing the novelty preference for the unlabeled object w o u l d be to have both objects present o n the stage at all times. Alternatively, we could present a fixation card m i d w a y between both objects before the test question. T h i s card should attract the chi ld 's attention to the centre o f the stage, therefore reducing the preference for the unlabeled object. W e expect that further studies such as the ones proposed here w i l l increase our understanding o f children's early representations o f proper names and count nouns, as well as the development o f children's conceptual distinction between individuals and categories. Identifying when infants first show the ability to distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns is an important first step in understanding h o w this ability emerges in development. Infants' ability to distinguish appropriately between proper names and count nouns suggests that they represent the necessary associated 24 concepts (i.e., individual and category) at that age. However , the manner in w h i c h infants f o r m links between words (e.g., proper names and count nouns) and these concepts (e.g., individuals and categories) is open to speculation. O n e proposal i n the literature is that infants start with the assumption that all novel words refer to categories, that is, function as count nouns (e.g., W a x m a n , 1994). Subsequently, they use various sources o f information to learn the links between different categories and their associated concepts. Important types o f information may include pragmatic and social information (e.g., B a l d w i n , 1991, 1993; H a l l , 1996, 1999) and syntactic information (e.g., K a t z et al . , 1974), among others. A second proposal is that word learning constraints such as the whole-object assumption (leading children to assume that novel words refers to objects as wholes) and the taxonomic assumption (leading children to extend novel words to objects o f the same category) may play an important role in forming linkages between categories and count nouns (e.g., M a r k m a n , 1994). Constraints such as the mutual exclusivity assumption (leading children to accept only one novel w o r d to refer to an object) may help infants override the two preceding constraints and help them form links between, for example, individuals and proper names (e.g., M a r k m a n , 1994). Further research with infants, including infants acquiring languages other than E n g l i s h or more than one language, is needed to explore the issue o f when infants begin to distinguish appropriately between words o f different lexical categories and h o w these representations are l inked to existing concepts in the infants' m i n d . 25 References B a l d w i n , D . A . (1991). Infants' contribution to the achievement o f joint reference. C h i l d Development , 62, 875-890. B a l d w i n , D . A . (1993). Infants' ability to consult the speaker for clues to w o r d reference. Journal o f C h i l d Language. 20, 395-418. B l o o m , P. (2000). H o w children learn the meaning o f words. Cambridge , M A : M I T Press. D a l e , P. S., & Fenson, L . (1996). L e x i c a l development norms for y o u n g children. Behavior Research Methods . Instruments. & Computers . 28 (1). 125-127. Fernald, A . , Pinto, J. P., Swingley , D . , Weinberg , A . , & M c R o b e r t s , G . W . (1998). R a p i d gains in speed o f verbal processing by infants in the 2 n d year. Psychological Science. 9. 228-231. G e l m a n , S., & Taylor , M . (1984). H o w two-year-old children interpret proper and c o m m o n names for unfamiliar objects. C h i l d Development . 55, 1535-1540. Gentner, D . (1982). W h y nouns are learned before verbs: Linguist ic relativity vs. natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.) , Language development. V o l . 2: Language, cognition, and culture, (pp. 301-334). Hil lsdale , N . J. : E r l b a u m . H a l l , D . G . (1991). A c q u i r i n g proper nouns for familiar and unfamiliar animate objects: two-year-olds ' word-learning biases. C h i l d Development , 62, 1142-1154. H a l l , D . G . (1996). Preschoolers' default assumptions about w o r d meaning: Proper names designate unique individuals. Developmental Psychology. 32. 177-186. 26 H a l l , D . G . (1999). Semantics and the acquisition o f proper names and count nouns. In R . Jackendoff, P. B l o o m , & K W y n n (Eds.) , Language, logic , and concepts: Essays in memory o f John M a c n a m a r a (pp. 337-372). Cambridge , M A : T h e M I T Press. H a l l , D . G . , L e e , S. C , & Belanger, J. (2001). Y o u n g children's use o f syntactic cues to learn proper names and count nouns. Developmental Psychology, 37, 298-307. K a t z , N . , Baker , E . , & Macnamara , J. (1974). What ' s in a name? A study o f h o w children learn c o m m o n and proper names. C h i l d Development . 45, 469-473. Liittschwager, J. , & M a r k m a n , E . (1993). Y o u n g children's understanding o f proper versus c o m m o n nouns. Poster presented at the Biennia l Meetings o f the Society for Research i n C h i l d Development , N e w Orleans, L A . M a c n a m a r a , J . (1982). N a m e s for things. Cambridge , M A : M I T Press. M a r k m a n , E . M . (1994). Constrains on word meaning in early language acquisition. L i n g u a 92, 199-227. N e l s o n , K . (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. M o n o g r a p h s o f the Society o f Research in C h i l d Development . 38. no. 149. Pinker, S. (1997). H o w the m i n d works. N e w Y o r k : W . W . Nor ton . Sorrentino, C . (1999). Individuation, identity, and proper names i n cognitive development. U n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute o f T e c h n o l o g y . W a x m a n , S. R . (1994). T h e development o f an appreciation o f specific linkages between linguistic and conceptual organization. L i n g u a 92, 229-257. W a x m a n , S. R . (1999). Specifying the scope o f 13-month-olds' expectations for novel words. Cogni t ion , 70. B 3 5 - B 5 0 . 27 W a x m a n , S. R. , & M a r k o w , D . B . (1998). Object properties and object kinds: Twenty-one-month-old infants' extension o f novel adjectives. C h i l d Development . 69. 1313-1329. 28 Footnotes 'Languages also provide other ways to refer to individuals. F o r example, individuals can also be denoted by definite descriptions such as "the girl with the pink dress" or by pronouns such as "she" . 2 T h e issue o f whether to use familiar objects (e.g., stuffed dogs, ducks, fish, and bears) or unfamiliar objects (e.g., stuffed monsters) for this task is a complex one. W h e n children are taught a novel count noun for a familiar object—that is an object for w h i c h they already k n o w a count noun—they are reluctant to accept the new label as referring to a category (e.g., H a l l , 1991). F o r example, they are reluctant to learn the count n o u n " p o o d l e " for a dog w h e n they already k n o w the w o r d " d o g " . O n the other hand, when children are taught a novel w o r d for an object with w h i c h they are unfamiliar (e.g., a stuffed monster), they tend to interpret the new word as a category label (i.e., as a count noun) whether the novel word is presented as a count noun or as a proper name (e.g., H a l l , 1991). In light o f this f inding, in the current study, we chose to use familiar objects to increase the l ikel ihood that the infants w o u l d interpret the novel words presented syntactically as proper names as referring to individual objects. 29 Figure 1. Procedure used in Experiments 1 and 2 A ) T w o identical- looking stuffed animals were presented o n a puppet stage, and then removed. B ) O n e o f the animals is presented to one side o f the stage. C ) T h e animal was slowly m o v e d to the other side o f the stage. D ) T h e other identical- looking animal was then placed where the first one had originally been located. 30 Figure 2. 20 -month-olds' mean proportions o f 1 s t looks to the unlabeled object f o l l o w i n g the first phoneme o f the n o u n phrase o f the test question for each condition TJ1.00 Proper Names Count Noun No Word Condition 31 Figure 3. 16-month-olds' mean proportions o f 1 s t looks to the labeled object f o l l o w i n g the first phoneme o f the noun phrase o f the test question for each condition o1.00 T <D IT o 0 .80" <D _ Q CO Proper N a m e Coun t N o u n N o W o r d Condition 32 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089957/manifest

Comment

Related Items