Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:30:50.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two-year-olds differentially disambiguate novel words and facts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2007

JASON SCOFIELD  and
DOUGLAS A. BEHREND
JASON SCOFIELD*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
DOUGLAS A. BEHREND
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas
*
Address for correspondence: Jason Scofield, 222 Child Development Research Center, Human Development and Family Studies, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When presented with a pair of objects, one familiar and one unfamiliar, and asked to select the referent of a novel word, children reliably demonstrate the disambiguation effect and select the unfamiliar object. The current study investigated two competing word learning accounts of this effect: a pragmatic account and a word learning principles account. Two-, three- and four-year-olds were presented with four disambiguation conditions, a word/word, a word/fact, a fact/word and a fact/fact condition. A pragmatic account predicted disambiguation in all four conditions while a word learning principles account predicted disambiguation in the word/word and fact/word conditions. Results indicated that children disambiguated in word/word and fact/word conditions and two-year-olds disambiguated at above chance levels in the word/word condition but at below chance levels in the fact/fact condition. Because disambiguation varied both as a function of age and condition these findings are presented as challenges to a pragmatic account of the disambiguation effect.

Type
Note
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 875 - 889
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, D. A. (2000). Interpersonal understanding fuels knowledge acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(2), 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. & Moses, L. M. (2001). Links between social understanding and early word learning: Challenges to current accounts. Social Development 10, 309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrend, D. A. (1990). Constraints and development: A reply to Nelson, 1988. Cognitive Development 5, 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrend, D. A., Scofield, J. & Kleinknecht, E. E. (2001). Beyond fast mapping: Young children's extensions of novel words and novel facts. Developmental Psychology 37, 698–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L., Margulis, C. & Tinker, E. (1996). Early conversations and word learning: Contributions from child and adult. Child Development 67, 3154–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Serial no. 164, 41(1).Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language 17, 417–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diesendruck, G. (2005). The principles of conventionality and contrast in word learning: An empirical examination. Developmental Psychology 41, 451–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diesendruck, G. & Markson, L. (2001). Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology 37, 630–41.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. & Shatz, M. (1989). Becoming a conversationalist despite (or because of) having an older sibling. Child Development 60, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1989). Contrast: A semantic constraint? Journal of Child Language 16, 685–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language 21, 125–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, S. A., Poulin-Dubois, D. & Baker, R. K. (1998). Infants' disambiguation of novel object words. First Language 18, 149–64.Google Scholar
Halberda, J. (2003). The development of a word-learning strategy. Cognition 87, B23–B34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollich, G., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: An Emergentist Coalition Model of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Serial no. 262, 65(3).Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K. & Hansen, M. B. (2006). Learning words: Children disregard some pragmatic information that conflicts with mutual exclusivity. Developmental Science 9, 158–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markman, E. M. (1992). Constraints on word learning: Speculations about their nature, origins, and domain specificity. In Gunner, M. R. & Maratsos, M. (eds) Modularity and constraints in language and cognition, Vol. 25, 59–101. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology 20, 121–57.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M., Wasow, J. L. & Hansen, M. B. (2003). Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology 47, 241–75.Google Scholar
Markson, L. (2005). Conventionality across domains: Children's knowledge of words, facts, and preferences. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Markson, L. & Bloom, P. (1997). Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature 385, 813–15.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31, 838–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriman, W. E. & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Serial no. 220, 54(3–4).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriman, W. E & Schuster, J. M. (1991). Young children's disambiguation of object novel word reference. Child Development 62, 1288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Bertrand, J. (1994). Acquisition of the novel name–nameless category (N3C) principle. Child Development 65, 1646–62.Google Scholar
Preissler, M. A. & Carey, S. (2005). The role of inferences about referential intent in word learning: Evidence from autism. Cognition 97, B13–B23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saylor, M. M., Sabbagh, M. A. & Baldwin, D. A. (2002). Children use implicit contrast as a pragmatic cue to word meaning. Developmental Psychology 38, 993–1103.Google Scholar
Starr, S. (1974). Discrimination of syntactical errors in children under two and one-half years. Developmental Psychology 10, 381–6.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R. & Booth, A. E. (2000). Principles that are invoked in the acquisition of words, but not facts. Cognition 77, B33–B43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. L. & Markman, E. M. (1998). Early word learning. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language, 5th ed., 371–420. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Xu, F., Cote, M. & Baker, A. (2005). Labeling guides object individuation in 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science 16, 372–7.Google Scholar