# Augustinian BabyLM: What Ostensive Definition Can and Cannot Teach a Small Language Model

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11870 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11870/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Flickr30k Entities: Collecting Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Image-to-Sentence Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.04870/) (2015)
- [Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.02283/) (2015)
- [iBOT: Image BERT Pre-Training with Online Tokenizer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.07832/) (2021)
- [BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00582/) (2019)
- [Findings of the Second BabyLM Challenge: Sample-Efficient Pretraining on Developmentally Plausible Corpora](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05149/) (2024)
- [BabyLM Turns 3: Call for papers for the 2025 BabyLM workshop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.10645/) (2025)
- [Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13257/) (2023)
- [BabyLM Turns 4 and Goes Multilingual: Call for Papers for the 2026 BabyLM Workshop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.20092/) (2026)
- [Model Merging to Maintain Language-Only Performance in Developmentally Plausible Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.01845/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A language model normally begins training with random word embeddings: whatever 'banana' means must be learned from training corpora. I implement St. Augustine's picture of word learning, meaning by ostension, for a small masked language model (DeBERTa) trained on 10M words: before training, visually grounded tokens receive embeddings derived from the image regions they label; other tokens start random. Visual initialization leaves a measurable imprint that lasts until the end of training. At the same time, the effect remains invisible under most BabyLM benchmarks, which probe abstract grammatical knowledge: visual initialization does not affect performance there. The only zero-shot exception is object-property knowledge (COMPS), where seeding helps in every configuration. To follow up on this result, I build a corpus-tailored version of the Visual-Property Swap benchmark, which tests color, material, size, and shape knowledge, with per-item training frequency and seeded status. Here, vision-seeded models have a persistent, seed-replicated advantage. Function words and abstract vocabulary also receive strong visual seeds and retain them throughout training, and the training objective draws on them: held-out mask-prediction loss falls for these words in every seed. However, no benchmark I run registers this. What evaluation would pick this up remains an open question.