Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:40:09.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of gone and the development of the object concept*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Alison Gopnik
Alison Gopnik
Affiliation:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between the acquisition of gone and the development of the object concept is investigated. Children acquire gone at the same time that they solve serial invisible displacement tasks, in a transitional period in the development of the object concept. According to a ‘neo-piagetian’ account of the object concept, children move from using specific rules to predict the reappearance of objects, to using a general theory of object movements during this period. The children's uses of gone suggest that gone encodes the fact that the child does not perceive an existing object. This concept is an essential component of the new theory of objects developed in this period. Children seem to acquire gone when they are in the midst of developing the concept that gone encodes, which may explain why they acquire the word in this period. In this case, conceptual development does not precede semantic development; rather, conceptual and semantic development appear to proceed simultaneously.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 273 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

[*]

Portions of this paper were presented at the International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Vancouver 1981, and the 1982 Waterloo Conference on Child Development. It is based on work undertaken for a University of Oxford doctoral dissertation, and on work under the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada postdoctoral fellowship 457-82-0054. I am grateful to Andrew Meltzoff, Robbie Case and David Olson for helpful discussion and criticism, and to Guy Ewing for assistance in transcription and phonetic analysis. Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics and Psychology, Scarborough Campus, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1C 1A4.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: the use of single-word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bower, T. G. R. (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Bower, T. G. R., Broughton, J. M. & Moore, M. K. (1979). Development of the object concept as manifested by changes in the tracking behavior of infants between seven and twenty weeks of age. JExpChPsychol 11. 182–92.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, W. R. (1966). Persistence of orienting and attending behavior in infants as a function of stimulus-locus uncertainty. ChDev 37. 473–90.Google ScholarPubMed
Corrigan, R. (1978). Language development as related to stage 6 object permanence development. JChLang 5. 173–89.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1981 a). The development of non-nominal expressions in 12–24-month-olds. In Dale, P. & Ingram, D. (eds), Child language: an international perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1981 b). Gone and the concept of the object. Proceedings of the second international congress for the study of child language. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1982). Words and plans: early language and the development of intelligent action. JChLang 9. 303–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Gratch, G. (1976). On levels of awareness of objects in infants and students thereof. MPQ 22. 157–76.Google Scholar
Moore, M. K. & Meltzoff, A. (1978). Imitation, object permanence and language development in infancy. In Minifie, F. & Lloyd, L. (eds), Communicative and cognitive abilities: early behavior assessment. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). The cognitive bases of relational words in the single word period. JChLang 8. 15–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 38 (1–2), Serial No. 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The child's construction of reality. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, D. & Campos, J. (1975). Memory by the infant in an object notion task. DevPsych 11. 411–12.Google Scholar
Uzgiris, I. & Hunt, J. (1975). Assessment in infancy: ordinal scales of psychological development. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar