Is this still called a dog? 18‐month‐olds' generalization of familiar labels to unusual objects

Abstract

In two experiments the flexibility of 18-month-olds' extension of familiar object labels was investigated using the intermodal preferential looking paradigm. The first experiment tested whether infants consider intact and incomplete objects as equally acceptable referents for familiar labels. Infants looked equally long at the intact and incomplete objects whether or not a label was presented. In the second experiment, infants were requested to find the referent of a target word among an incomplete target and an intact distracter or an intact target and an incomplete distracter. The incomplete objects were missing a large or small part. Infants looked longer at the incomplete target, even when large or small parts were deleted. Taken together, these findings suggest that infants do not hold a strong shape bias when generalizing familiar words. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key words: labelling; object parts; shape bias; vocabulary; word comprehension Learning a word involves mapping a sound, such as the sound 'dog', onto a meaning, such as the concept of dog. A central issue is how children grasp the conditions underlying word extension, the understanding of, for instance, what is and what is not called dog. Children start producing words around the age of 12 months and have acquired a lexicon of about 50 words by the middle of their second year (Bloom, 1973;Dromi, 1987;Fenson et al., 1994). Once children reach the 50-word milestone in their lexicon, a rapid increase in vocabulary is observed, also called the vocabulary spurt, which contrasts with the slower rate of acquisition observed earlier (Benedict, 1979;Goldfield and Reznick, 1990;Poulin-Dubois et al., 1995b). Many explanations have been proposed for this spurt, including a linguistic insight, improved categorization skills, neurological maturation and the outcome of connectionist-type learning (

Fishy fishes: the typicality of object stimuli used to assess children's language in the Reynell Development Language Scales—III

“…This also fits well with previous research on typicality effects and naming in children (e.g. Meints et al 1999, 2002, 2008).…”

“…Furthermore, when considering what makes something more or less ‘typical’ participants were introduced to the typicality rating task by being asked to think about a ‘true green’ as compared with a ‘brownish green’ or a ‘yellow green’. Similar instructions have been used successfully in previous studies (Meints et al 1999, 2002, 2008). All participants received the same instructions.…”

“…Here, research has shown that associations children make between a word and its referent in early word learning can be predicted using a prototype approach to early word meaning (e.g. Barrett 1995, Meints et al 1999, 2002, 2008, Poulin‐Dubois and Sissons 2002, Southgate and Meints 2000). Thus, 12‐month‐olds begin by associating a noun, e.g.…”

“…an ostrich). Only from 18 months onwards do children begin to associate nouns such as ‘bird’, ‘dog’ or ‘car’ with an atypical exemplar such as an ostrich, a pug or a racing car (Meints et al 1999, Poulin‐Dubois and Sissons 2002). This is reflected in Rosch's (1973) seminal research that showed robust typicality effects in various categories.…”

Bye‐bye mummy – Word comprehension in 9‐month‐old infants

“…However, as we know that infants around 12 months can already understand a range of words, for example, proper nouns, nouns, and socio‐pragmatic words (e.g., Schafer, ; Syrnyk, ), there must be an earlier point in time when we can observe the onset of their word learning abilities. Studies with 12‐ and 15‐month‐old children have shown that they can match nouns and prepositions to previously unseen, typical exemplars, but they cannot extend these words to less typical (e.g., Meints, Plunkett, & Harris, ; Meints, Plunkett, Harris, & Dimmock, ; Poulin‐Dubois & Sissons, ; Southgate & Meints, ) or broken exemplars (Meints & Jones, ) as children and adults can. Thus, young infants’ word comprehension is not just lacking in size, but also lacking in maturity when compared with older children and adults.…”