Known and Novel Noun Extensions: Attention at Two Levels of Abstraction

Child Development

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 564-577

  Yoshida, Hanako ^b   Smith, Linda B ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ATTENTION; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; HUMANS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 0042844823     PISSN: 00093920     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402016     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahn, W., & Luhmann, C. C. (in press). The role of perceptual processes in the emergence of the animate-inanimate distinction in infancy. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (in press). Abstraction as a dynamic construal in perceptual symbol systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Chouinard, M. M., & Markman, E. M. (2001, April). The role of object type in label learning: A reevaluation of the shape bias. Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
4. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2000). Learning to learn words: A cross-linguistic study of the shape and material biases. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1, 197-207.
5. Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Hartung, J., Pethick, S., et al. (1993). Mac Arthur Communicative Development Inventories. San Diego, CA: Singular.
6. Gelman, S. A. (1996). Concepts and theories. In R. Gelman & T. Kit-Fong (Eds.), Perceptual and cognitive development. Handbook of perception (2nd ed., pp. 117-150). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7. Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103.
8. Gelman, S. A., Croft, W., Fu, P., Clausner, T., & Gottfried, G. (1998). Why is a pomegranate an apple? The role of shape, taxonomic relatedness, and prior lexical knowl- edge in children's overextensions of apple and dog. Journal of Child Language, 25, 267-291.
9. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183-209.
10. Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Smith, L. B. (2002). Shape and the first hundred nouns. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11. Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231-262.
12. Graham, S. A., Williams, L. D., & Huber, J. F. (1999). Preschoolers' and adults' reliance on object shape and object function of lexical extension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 128-151.
13. Imai, M., Gentner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children's theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9, 45-76.
14. Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (2002). How children know the relevant properties for generalizing object names. Developmental Science, 5, 219-232.
15. Jones, S. S., Smith, L. B., & Landau, K. B. (1991). Object properties and knowledge in early lexical learning. Child Development, 62, 499-516.
16. Kemler-Nelson, D. G., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child Development, 71, 1271-1288.
17. Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psycholonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636-645.
18. Landau, B. K., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.
19. Landau, B. K, Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 1-27.
20. Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 60-96.
21. Massey, C. M., & Gelman, R. (1988). Preschooler's ability to decide whether a photographed unfamiliar object can move itself. Developmental Psychology, 24, 307-317.
22. Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., Edelson, S. M., & Freko, D. (1982). Correlated symptoms and simulated medical classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognitive, 8, 37-50.
23. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
24. Murphy, G., & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
25. Namy, L. L., & Gentner, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 5-15.
26. Ogura, T., & Watamaki, T. (1997). Japanese Communicative Developmental Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.
27. Ogura, T., Yamashita, Y., Murase, T., & Dale, P. S. (1993). Some findings from the Japanese Early Communicative Development Inventories. Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Shimane University, 27, 26-38.
28. Quinn, C. P., Eimas, D. P., & Tarr, J. M. (2001). Perceptual categorization of cat and dog silhouettes by 3- to 4-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 78-94.
29. Rakison, H. D. (2000). When a rose is just a rose: The illusion of taxonomies in infant categorization. Infancy, 1, 77-90.
30. Rakison, H. D. (in press). The role of perceptual processes in the emergence of the animate-inanimate distinction in infancy. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Rakison, H. D., & Cohen, B. L. (1999). Infants' use of functional parts in basic-like categorization Developmental Science, 2, 423-431.
32. Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. 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.
34. Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in 15- to 20-month-olds and connectionist models. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1016-1037.
35. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category structure, and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73, 1-33.
36. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (2000). Attention to rigid and deformable shape in naming and non-naming tasks. Child Development, 71, 1555-1570.
37. Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications Psychological Monographs, 75 (13, Whole No. 517), 42.
38. Sloutsky, M. V., Y.-F. Lo, & Fisher, V. A. (2001). How much does a shared name make things similar? Linguistic labels, similarity, and the development of inductive inference. Child Development, 72, 1695-1709.
39. Smith, L. B. (1995). Self-organizing processes in learning to learn words: Development is not induction. In. C. Nelson (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Volume 28. Basic and applied perspectives on learning, cognition, and development (pp. 1-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Smith, L. B. (2000). How to learn words: An associative crane. In R. M. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Breaking the word learning barrier (pp. 51-80). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41. Smith, L. B., Colunga, E., & Yoshida, H. (2003). Making ontology: Cross-linguistic evidence In L. Oakes & D. Rakison (Eds.), Early category development and concept development: Making sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion (pp. 275-302). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
42. Smith, L. B., & Heise, D. (1992). Perceptual similarity and conceptual structure. In B. Burns (Ed.), Percepts, concepts and categories: The representation and processing of information. Advances in psychology (pp. 233-272). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
43. Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B. K., Gershkoff-Stow, L., & Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13, 13-19.
44. Waxman, S. R., & Hall, D. G. (1993). The development of a linkage between count nouns and object categories: Evidence from fifteen- to twenty-one-month-old infants. Child Development, 64, 1224-1241.
45. Waxman, S. R., Lynch, E. B., Casey, K. L., & Baer, L. (1997). Setters and samoyeds: The emergence of subordinate level categories as a basis for inductive inference in preschool-age children Developmental Psychology, 33, 1074-1090.
46. Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12-to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257-302.
47. Waxman, S. R., & Namy, L. L. (1997). Challenging the notion of a thematic preference in young children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 555-567.
48. Welder, N. A., & Graham, A. S. (2001). The influences of shape similarity and shared labels on infants' inductive inferences about nonobvious object properties. Child Development, 72, 1653-1673.