Toddlers use the word "on" to describe a variety of spatial support relationships, not just support from below. An analysis of young children's speech found they used "on" to describe over a dozen different support configurations, including embedded, adhesive, and suspension support. While some uses referred to traditional solid support from below, over half described other force-dynamic relationships between figures and grounds. This suggests children represent the semantics of "on" broadly in terms of spatial relationships rather than privileging just one type of support.

1. The Language of Support in Young Children’s Spontaneous Speech
Laura Lakusta1, Maria Brucato1, Amrita Bindra1, Madalyn Polen2, and Barbara Landau2
Montclair State University1, Johns Hopkins University2
Address correspondence to BrucatoM1@montclair.edu & LakustaL@mail.montclair.edu International Congress of Infant Studies | New Orleans LA | May 26 – 28, 2016 | Research is supported by NSF Award #1145762
Results
Children spontaneously use on for relationships of
“support from below” (*)
as well as a broad range of other kinds of relationships
Embedded/ Adhesion
“this got tape on it”
162
12.5%
Support From Below, Other*
“cheese sandwich on the plate”
146
11.3%
Furniture*
“scissors on the table”
142
11.0%
Spatial Location
“on that side”
129
10.0%
Vehicle (Enclosed & Open)*
“we went on the subway” & “I ride on my bike”
122
9.4%
Large Horizontal Surface*
“ice on the floor”
92
7.1%
Body Part*
“I sitting on you legs”
82
6.3%
Large Structure*
“put them on the other bridge”
51
3.9%
Donning
“he putting on her coat”
51
3.9%
Temporal
“you come on Wednesday”
39
3.0%
Plant*
“it might land on the cactus”
19
1.5%
Suspension
“hang this on the wall”
12
0.9%
Food*
“I'm gonna put salt on my eggs”
11
0.9%
Encirclement
“a ring on him”
5
0.4%
Other & No Ground Object a
231
17.9%
a ‘Other’ utterances consisted of various support types that did not lend themselves
to any of the above categories (e.g., “catches my finger on it”, “it's stuck on”).
* Support types that one may argue fall under the traditional solid ‘support from
below’ configuration (51.4%; 665 utterances; e.g., “scissors on the table”).
Summary
Toddlers use on to encode a variety of support configurations,
not solely support from below.
Introduction
Methods
§ Participants:
8 English-speaking children (6 male; age range: 1;6. to 4;0).
§ Database: Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) corpora (MacWhinney, 2000).
Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN) was used to extract specific utterances from these
transcripts that included the word on.
§ Coding:
Children’s utterances (n = 1,834) were coded for the type of support configuration
- support configuration types were derived from:
- Examination of figure object, ground object, and verbs
- Previous research (e.g., Landau et al., 2016; Vandeloise, 2005).
§ Note:
- Non-support configurations with on used as an idiom (e.g., “shame on you”) or as a verb
particle (e.g., “come on Jenny”) were excluded from our analysis (n = 240).
- Any utterances that were too ambiguous to be coded for a singular support type were
excluded (n = 300; e.g., “on you”).
Participant
Name
Age Range
Gender
Number of
Transcripts
Number of
Utterances
Author of
Transcripts
1
Eve
1;6.0- 2;3.0
F
20
227
Brown
2
Peter
1;10.11- 3;1.20
M
18
380
Bloom 70
3
Trevor
2;0.27- 2;8.11
M
12
50
Demetras 1
4
Shem
2;2.16-2;8.29
M
25
261
Clark
5
Adam
2;3.04- 2;8.01
M
9
27
Brown
6
Abe
2;5.07- 2;8.29
M
26
76
Kuczaj
7
Lilly
1;10.9- 4;0.2 F
58 520 Providence
8
Ethan
1;4.26- 2;11.1 M
37 293 Providence
Conclusions
§ Children’s earliest uses of on demonstrate a broad semantic representation of support
encompassing many different support types.
- On is used to encode support types that may fall under the traditional notion of ‘support
from below’.
- However, at least half of children’s utterances extend outside ‘support from below,’
encoding terms in a relationship that can be better understood as a force-dynamic
relationship between a figure and ground object, such as ‘embedded’, ‘suspension’, and
‘adhesion’.
What Is Support?
§ Traditional notion: A figure object being supported from below by a solid
ground object (e.g., a rubber duck on a box) .
§ Linguistic analyses: A force-dynamic relationship between the figure and
ground object (e.g., Coventry et al., 1994; Vandeloise, 2005).
§ Indeed, languages use support terms (on, in English) to describe a
variety of different support types—support configurations that go
beyond solid ‘support from below’ (see below & Landau et al. 2016).
Our Research Question
Is on primarily used to describe ‘support from below’ configurations in children’s earliest
productions of spatial language (suggesting that support from below is privileged)?
Or, is on used to describe a variety of support configurations?
Support from Below
Embedded Support
Adhesive Support
Suspension Support
What are the Semantics of on for Children?
§ Children produce and comprehend on very early in development (e.g., Bowerman, 1996; Johanes et al.
2015; Landau et al. 2016; Meints et al., 2002).
§ Children from two to six years old encode a variety of support relationships although support
from below may be privileged (Gentner & Bowerman, 2009).
Flower on a boot. Sticker on a paper. Picture on the wall.
Future Questions
§ What is the nature of the pre-verbal concept that may map into children’s semantic
representations of support?
- Is ‘support from below’ privileged in infants’ semantic representations of support
(e.g., Hespos & Spelke, 2004)?
- If so, does it serve as the basis for mapping into semantic space?
§ Beyond on, do children use particular types of verbs (e.g., “hang” or “stick” ) for force-
dynamic support configurations, or do they mainly use non-lexical verbs (BE on) for all
types of support?
- Adults demonstrate a “division of labor” in support language:
- Non-lexical verbs are used with traditional ‘support from below’
configurations
- Lexical verbs are used to describe force-dynamic, mechanical support
(Landau et al, 2016; Johannes et al., 2015)
- Children demonstrate less of a “division of labor” which has been found to be
related to their development of lexical verbs (Johannes et al., 2015).
- Would a CHILDES analysis of lexical verb use for support events reveal a
“division of labor” for young children?
§ How might parental input play a role in shaping the early semantic space for children’s
spatial language?
- Children’s use of verbs for particular support configurations (e.g., “hang”, “stick”)
may be associated with the linguistic input of their parents (Johannes et al., 2015).
References
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Language and space, 385-436.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of
Semantics, 11(4), 289-309.
Gentner, D., & Bowerman, M. (2009). Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence
hypothesis.Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 465-480.
Hespos, S. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language.Nature, 430(6998), 453-456.
Johannes, K., Wilson, C., & Landau, B. (2015). The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in
and on. Manuscript submitted, Cognition.
Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O'Hearn, K., & Landau, B. (2007). Conceptual foundations of spatial language: Evidence for a goal bias in
infants. Language Learning and Development, 3(3), 179-197.
Landau, B., Johannes, K., Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016).Containment and support: Core and complexity in spatial language.
Cognitive Science.
Meints, K., Plunkett, K., Harris, P. L., & Dimmock, D. (2002). What is ‘on’and ‘under’for 15‐, 18‐and 24‐month‐olds? Typicality
effects in early comprehension of spatial prepositions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(1), 113-130.
Vandeloise, C. (2003). Containment, support, and linguistic relativity. Cognitive approaches to lexical linguistics, 393-425.
Vandeloise, C. (2005). Force and function in the acquisition of the preposition in. Functional features in language and space: Insights
from perception, categorization, and development, 219-229.