Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:16:23.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How mothers teach basic-level and situation-restricted count nouns*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

D. Geoffrey Hall
D. Geoffrey Hall*
Affiliation:
M. R. C. Cognitive Development Unit, London
*
M.R.C. Cognitive Development Unit, 4 Taviton Street, London WC1H 0BT, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research suggests that young children assume, as a default, that a word applied ostensively to an unfamiliar object (e.g. a man riding in a car) is a basic-level count noun (e.g. person) rather than a situation-restricted count noun (e.g. passenger). In this experiment, 14 mothers and their children (mean age 3;7; range 3;0 to 4;6) participated in a story-book reading session in which the mothers taught their children both a basic-level count noun and a situation-restricted count noun for a series of object drawings. An analysis of mothers' spontaneous teaching strategies revealed that, for a given object, they typically taught a basic-level count noun before a situation-restricted count noun. Furthermore, they tended to teach basic-level count nouns exclusively through estensive definition, especially when the objects were unfamiliar. Moreover, they were (1) more likely to use estensive definitions and (2) less likely to provide additional information concerning the application of the word, when teaching basic-level count nouns than when teaching situation-restricted count nouns. The results provide new evidence that word teachers, like young word learners, assume that a basic-level count noun is the psychologically-privileged candidate for an ostensive definition involving an (unfamiliar) object.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 391 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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 article is based on a portion of a doctoral thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. The research was supported by a Centennial Fellowship from the N.S.E.R.C, of Canada. I am indebted to Sandra Waxman for her support and guidance. I thank Roger Brown, Susan Carey, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Robert Rosenthal, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. I am grateful to the mothers and children who participated in this study.

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, D. (1989). Priorities in children's expectations about object label reference: form over color. Child Development 60, 1291–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, D. (1991). Infants' contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development 62, 875–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. (1978). Ethnobiological classification. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds), Categorization and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Callanan, M. (1985). How parents label objects for young children: the role of input in the acquisition of category hierarchies. Child Development 56, 508–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callanan, M. (1989). Development of object categories and inclusion relations: preschoolers' hypotheses about word meanings. Developmental Psychology 25, 207–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. (1980). The logic of common nouns. New Haven, CT: Yale Press.Google Scholar
Hall, D. G. (1991). Acquiring proper names for familiar and unfamiliar animate objects: two-year-olds' word-learning biases. Child Development 62, 1142–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. G. (1993 a). Basic-level individuals. Cognition 48, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, D. G. (1993 b). How children learn common nouns and proper names: a review of the experimental evidence. In Macnamara, J. & Reyes, G. (eds), The logical foundations of cognition. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Hall, D. G. & Waxman, S. (1993). Assumptions about word meaning: individuation and basic-level kinds. Child Development 64, 1550–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. G., Waxman, S. R. & Hurwitz, W. (1993). How 2- and 4-year-old children interpret adjectives and count nouns. Child Development 64, 1651–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, M. & Markman, E. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Development 51, 708–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1986). A border dispute. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Markman, E., Horton, M. & McLanahan, A. (1980). Classes and collections: principles of organization in the learning of hierarchical relations. Cognition 8, 561–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markman, E. & Hutchinson, J. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: taxonomic vs. thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology 16, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. & Wachtel, G. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology 20, 121–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mervis, C. (1987). Child-basic categories and early lexical development. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1980). Ostensive definition in vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Child Language 7, 565–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninio, A. & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Language 5, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 3, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. (1985). Contrasts: focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Shipley, E., Kuhn, I. & Madden, E. (1983). Mothers' use of superordinate category terms. Journal of Child Language 10, 571–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, E. & Spelke, E. (1988). Ostensive definitions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Soja, N., Carey, S. & Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions about word meaning: object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, M. & Gelman, S. (1988). Adjectives and nouns: children's strategies for learning new words. Child Development 59, 411–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. & Gelman, S. (1989). Incorporating new words into the lexicon: preliminary evidence for language hierarchies in 2-year-old children. Child Development 60, 625–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar