2012
DOI: 10.1515/langcog-2012-0009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What do we know when we claim to know nothing? Partial knowledge of word meanings may be ontological, but not hierarchical

Abstract: Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1866980800000764How to cite this article: Jeannette M. Stein and Wendelyn J. Shore (2012). What do we know when we claim to know nothing? Partial knowledge of word meanings may be ontological, but not hierarchical . AbstractTwo studies investigated whether knowledge about ontological category membership exists early in the word learning process -specifically, when words are partially known -and if so, how such knowledge is represented. Participants … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another interpretation for the conflicting results across modalities during Distractor Touches is based on the graded representations approach, which suggests that when two response modalities conflict, underlying knowledge may be partial (Morton & Munakata, ; Munakata , ; Munakata & McClelland, ). Here the notion is that word knowledge is not all‐or‐none, but exists on a continuum from absence of knowledge, to partial knowledge, to robust knowledge (Durso & Shore ; Frishkoff, Perfetti & Westbury, ; Ince & Christman, ; Schwanenflugel, Stahl & McFalls, ; Steele, ; Stein & Shore, ; Whitmore, Shore & Smith, ; Zareva, ). Identifying measures that can gauge word knowledge across this continuum is vital because it has been well documented that infants who demonstrate both delayed language comprehension and production are at the greatest risk for continued language delay, and later development deficits (Karmiloff‐Smith, ; Desmarais, Sylvestre, Meyer, Bairati & Rouleau, ; Law, Boyle, Harris, Harkness & Nye, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Another interpretation for the conflicting results across modalities during Distractor Touches is based on the graded representations approach, which suggests that when two response modalities conflict, underlying knowledge may be partial (Morton & Munakata, ; Munakata , ; Munakata & McClelland, ). Here the notion is that word knowledge is not all‐or‐none, but exists on a continuum from absence of knowledge, to partial knowledge, to robust knowledge (Durso & Shore ; Frishkoff, Perfetti & Westbury, ; Ince & Christman, ; Schwanenflugel, Stahl & McFalls, ; Steele, ; Stein & Shore, ; Whitmore, Shore & Smith, ; Zareva, ). Identifying measures that can gauge word knowledge across this continuum is vital because it has been well documented that infants who demonstrate both delayed language comprehension and production are at the greatest risk for continued language delay, and later development deficits (Karmiloff‐Smith, ; Desmarais, Sylvestre, Meyer, Bairati & Rouleau, ; Law, Boyle, Harris, Harkness & Nye, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here the notion is that word knowledge is not all-ornone, but exists on a continuum from absence of knowledge, to partial knowledge, to robust knowledge (Durso & Shore 1991;Frishkoff, Perfetti & Westbury, 2009;Ince & Christman, 2002;Schwanenflugel, Stahl & McFalls, 1997;Steele, 2012;Stein & Shore, 2012;Whitmore, Shore & Smith, 2004;Zareva, 2012). Identifying measures that can gauge word knowledge across this continuum is vital because it has been well documented that infants who demonstrate both delayed language comprehension and production are at the greatest risk for continued language delay, and later development deficits (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992;Desmarais, Sylvestre, Meyer, Bairati & Rouleau, 2008;Law, Boyle, Harris, Harkness & Nye, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternate view suggests that word knowledge is not dichotomous but instead exists on a continuum from absence of knowledge, to partial knowledge, to robust knowledge (Frishkoff, Perfetti, & Westbury, 2009; Henderson, Weighall, & Gaskell, 2013; Hendrickson, Mitsven, Poulin-Dubois, Zesiger, & Friend, 2015; Ince & Christman, 2002; McClelland & Elman, 1986; McMurray, 2007; Schwanenflugel, Stahl, & McFalls, 1997; Shore & Durso, 1991; Steele, 2012; Stein & Shore, 2012; Suanda, Mugwanya, & Namy, 2014; Whitmore, Shore, & Smith, 2004; Zareva, 2012). In contrast to theories that suggest that word learning is all-or-none (Gallistel, Fairhurst, & Balsam, 2004; Trueswell et al, 2013), incremental learning theories of word comprehension rely on the assumption that word knowledge is incremental and unfolds over time (McMurray, Horst, & Samuelson, 2012; Rogers & McClelland, 2004; Siskind, 1996; Spivey et al, 2010; Yu, 2008; Yu & Smith, 2007; Yurovsky, Fricker, Yu, & Smith, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fourteen-month-old's decontextualized understanding of words for absent objects Traditionally, investigations into the developing lexicon were largely focused on measuring the volume of words children comprehend as if word knowledge were an all-or-none phenomenon. However, a rich history of behavioral and computational research with adults supports the notion that word knowledge is not all-or-none (Frishkoff, Perfetti, & Westbury, 2009;Stein & Shore, 2012). Specifically, word knowledge becomes increasingly decontextualized as partial knowledge becomes more robust over time with experience (Yukovsky, Flicker, Yu, & Smith, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%