Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:19:02.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining that a label is kind-referring: factors that influence children's and adults' novel word extensions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

MEDHA TARE  and
SUSAN A. GELMAN
MEDHA TARE*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
SUSAN A. GELMAN
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
*
Address for correspondence to: Medha Tare, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, PO Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present studies examined factors that influence children's and adults' interpretation of a novel word. Four factors are hypothesized to emphasize that a label refers to a richly structured category (also known as a ‘kind’): generic language, internal property attributions, familiar kind labels and absence of a target photograph. In Study 1, for college students (N=125), internal property attributions resulted in more taxonomic and fewer shape responses. In Study 2, for four-year-olds (N=126), the presence of generic language and familiar kind labels resulted in more taxonomic choices. Further, the presence of familiar kind labels resulted in fewer shape choices. The results suggest that, when learning new words, children and adults are sensitive to factors that imply kind reference.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , November 2010 , pp. 1007 - 1026
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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 by NICHD grant HD36043 to Susan Gelman. We thank the children, parents and teachers at the University of Michigan Children's Centers and the Gretchen's House preschools. We are also grateful to Felicia Kleinberg, Erin Boyle, Dave Kush, Allison Wachter and Lisa Gilbertson for their research assistance. Portions of this research were presented at the October 2005 Cognitive Development Society conference in San Diego, CA and at the April 2007 Society for Research in Child Development conference in Boston, MA.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A. E. & Waxman, S. R. (2002). Word learning is ‘smart’: Evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers' extension of novel words. Cognition 84, B11–B22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds)1995. The generic book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A. & Markman, E. M. (2005). The absence of a shape bias in children's word learning. Developmental Psychology 41, 1003–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colunga, E. & Smith, L. B. (2008). Knowledge embedded in process: The self-organization of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science 11, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, N. S. & Gelman, S. A. (1990). Inductions from novel categories: The role of language and conceptual structure. Cognitive Development 5, 151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesendruck, G. & Bloom, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development 74, 168–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Chesnick, R. J. & Waxman, S. R. (2005). Mother–child conversations about pictures and objects: Referring to categories and individuals. Child Development 76, 1129–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K. S., Hartman, E. & Pappas, A. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63, v-148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Goetz, P. J., Sarnecka, B. S. & Flukes, J. (2008). Generic language in parent–child conversations. Language Learning and Development 4, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. & Kalish, C. W. (2006). Conceptual development. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds), Handbook of child psychology, 687–733. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition 23, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. & O'Reilly, A. W. (1988). Children's inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure. Child Development 59, 876–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. & Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development 74, 308–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. & Raman, L. (2007). This cat has nine lives? Children's memory for genericity in language. Developmental Psychology 43, 1256–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Star, J. R. & Flukes, J. E. (2002). Children's use of generics in inductive inferences. Journal of Cognition and Development 3, 179–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essence: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition 38, 213–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. & Namy, L. L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Shuff-Bailey, M., Olguin, R. & Ruan, W. (1995). Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of the categorical scope. Developmental Psychology 31, 494–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A. & Star, J. (2002). Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology 38, 883–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, M., Gentner, D. & Uchida, N. (1994). Children's theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development 9, 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, E. L. & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markman, E. M. & Callanan, M. A. (1983). An analysis of hierarchical classification. In Sternberg, R. (ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 2, 325–65. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology 16, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2001). Causes of taxonomic sorting by adults: A test of the thematic-to-taxonomic shift. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 834–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S. (2000). Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15–20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology 38, 1016–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S. & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition 60, 143–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L. & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science 13, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waxman, S. R. & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Early word-learning entails reference, not merely associations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. R. & Lidz, J. (2006). Early word learning. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds) Handbook of Child Psychology, 299–335. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar