The absence of a shape bias in children's word learning

Developmental Psychology

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1003-1019

  Cimpian, Andrei ^a   Markman, Ellen M ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Shape bias; Taxonomic bias; Word learning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ATTENTION; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; VERBAL LEARNING; VOCABULARY;

EID: 28744445621     PISSN: 00121649     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.1003     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Baldwin, D. A. (1992). Clarifying the role of shape in children's taxonomic assumption. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 392-416.
2. Bloom, P., & Markson, L. (1998). Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science, 9, 200-204.
3. Booth, A. E., & Waxman, S. R. (2002). Word learning is "smart": Evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers' extension of novel words. Cognition, 84, B11-B22.
4. Chouinard, M. M. (1999, April). Object label learning: How children learn labels for objects and how to appropriately extend those labels. Paper presented at the annual Stanford-Berkeley Conference on Developmental Psychology, Berkeley, CA.
5. Diamond, A., Kirkham, N., & Amso, D. (2002). Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental Psychology, 38, 352-362.
6. Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development, 74, 168-178.
7. Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children's reliance on creator's intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14, 164-168.
8. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9. 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.
10. Gelman, S. A., & Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inferences in 2-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 26, 796-804.
11. 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 knowledge in children's overextensions of apple and dog. Journal of Child Language, 25, 267-291.
12. Gelman, S. A., & Ebeling, K. S. (1998). Shape and representational status in children's early naming. Cognition, 66, B35-B47.
13. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183-208.
14. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Young children's inductions from natural kinds: The role of categories and appearances. Child Development, 58, 1532-1541.
15. Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215-256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Golinkoff, R. M., Shuff-Bailey, M., Olguin, R., & Ruan, W. (1995). Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of categorical scope. Developmental Psychology, 31, 494-507.
17. Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71, 1205-1222.
18. Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243-271.
19. Horton, M. S., & Markman, E. M. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Development, 51, 708-719.
20. Imai, M., Centner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children's theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9, 45-75.
21. Jaswal, V. K. (2003). A developmental study of the division of linguistic labor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
22. Jaswal, V. K., & Markman, E. M. (2002). Children's acceptance and use of unexpected category labels to draw non-obvious inferences. In W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 500-505). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (1993). The place of perception in children's concepts. Cognitive Development, 8, 113-139.
24. 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.
25. Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.
26. Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1992). Syntactic context and the shape bias in children's and adults' lexical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 807-825.
27. Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1950). New experimental attempts at preventing mechanization in problem solving. Journal of General Psychology, 42, 279-297.
28. Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Markman, E. M., & Callanan, M. (1983). An analysis of hierarchical classification. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 325-365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Markman, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1-27.
31. Mervis, C. B. (1987). Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 201-233). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mervis, C. B., & Crisafi, M. A. (1982). Order of acquisition of subordinate-, basic-, and superordinate-level categories. Child Development, 53, 258-266.
33. Munakata, Y., & Yerys, B. E. (2001). All together now: When dissociations between knowledge and action disappear. Psychological Science, 12, 335-337.
34. Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 572-586.
35. 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.
36. Shi, A. (1996). The role of shape and taxonomy in children's word-learning and inductive inferences. Unpublished honors thesis, Stanford University.
37. Shuff-Bailey, M. M. (1995). Young children extend novel object labels at the basic level: The role of perceptual similarity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
38. Smiley, S. S., & Brown, A. L. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 249-257.
39. Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1992). Count nouns, adjectives, and perceptual properties in children's novel word interpretations. Developmental Psychology, 28, 273-286.
40. Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179-211.
41. 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.
42. Welder, A. N., & Graham, S. A. (2001). The influence of shape similarity and shared labels on infants' inductive inferences about nonobvious object properties. Child Development, 72, 1653-1673.
43. Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D., & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development, 11, 37-63.