Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:21:35.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's understanding of homonyms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Andrea G. Backscheider  and
Susan A. Gelman
Andrea G. Backscheider*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Susan A. Gelman
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
*
Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous tasks have shown that preschool and early elementary school-children typically have trouble learning and identifying homonyms (Peters & Zaidel, 1980; Mazzocco, 1989). It is possible that a one-to-one mapping assumption or a lack of metalinguistic skills makes homonym learning and identification particularly difficult. In three experiments we examined a total of 60 three-year-olds' ability to pick out homonym pairs, and the extent to which they realize that although homonyms share a common label, they represent two different categories. In Experiment 1 subjects were asked to identify homonym pairs. In Experiment 2, homonym pairs and non-homonym pairs were labelled, then children were asked whether the pairs had the same name, and whether they were the same kind of thing. In Experiment 3 children were shown one-half of each of several homonym and non-homonym pairs, then asked to identify a name match and a category match from a set of pictures. From these experiments we conclude that children have the metalinguistic skills necessary to identify homonym pairs; moreover, they realized that homonyms represent two different categories. Finally, if children have a one-to-one mapping assumption, it is not strong enough to prevent them from acquiring homonyms.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 107 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by an NSF Predoctoral Fellowship to the first author, and an NSF Faculty Award for Women Scientists and Engineers, BNS 9100348, to the second author. We thank Ellen Markman and Terry Au for their helpful comments, and Debbie Kim for her assistance in Study 3. We gratefully acknowledge the children, teachers, and staff of the following schools for their participation: The La Mirada Grow and Learn Center, The Children's Play School of La Habra, California, and The University of Michigan Children's Centers.

References

REFERENCES

Banigan, R. L. & Mervis, C. B. (1988). Role of adult input in young children's category evolution. II. An experimental study. Journal of Child Language 15, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beveridge, M. & Marsh, L. (1991). The influence of context on young children's under-standing of homophonic words. Journal of Child Language 18, 459–67.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1980). The structure and origin of semantic categories in the language-learning child. In Poster, M. L. & Brandes, S. (eds), Symbols as sense. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. N. & MacDonald, T. B. (1982). Text and context in early language comprehension. In Donaldson, M. D., Grieve, R. & Pratt, C. (eds), Early child development and education. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1988). On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language 15, 317–35.Google Scholar
Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1987). Young children's inductions from natural kinds: the role of categories and appearances. Child Development 58, 1532–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: the case of object names. Cognitive Psychology 19, 68–89.Google Scholar
Kohn, A. S. & Landau, B. (1990). A partial solution to the homonym problem: parents' linguistic input to young children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 71–89.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don't understand: a preliminary investigation. Child Development 48, 986–92.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1991). The whole object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meanings. In Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P. (eds), Perspectives on language and thought: interrelations in development. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Mazzocco, M. M. (1989). Children's interpretation of homonyms. Poster presented at the biennial convention of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. E. (1991). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning: a reply to Woodward and Markman. Developmental Review 11, 164–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review 81, 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. & Zaidel, E. (1980). The acquisition of homonymy. Cognition 8, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. (1987). Bootstrapping operations in child language. In Nelson, K. & van Kleek, A. (eds), Children's language. Vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitt, J. K. & Prentiss, N. M. (1977). Cognitive processes in the development of children's enjoyment and comprehension of joking riddles. Developmental Psychology 13, 129–36.Google Scholar