Late talkers show no shape bias in a novel name extension task

By 2½ years of age, children typically show a shape bias in object naming – that is, they extend object names mostly to new instances with the same shape. The acquisition of a shape bias is related to a marked increase in the rate of object name learning. This study asks whether, conversely, children who do not readily acquire new object names lack a shape bias. Twelve 2- to 3-year-old ‘late talkers’– children whose total vocabularies rank below the 30th percentile for their age – were compared with age-matched children with larger vocabularies in a novel object name extension task. The controls extended novel names across novel objects with the same shape. The late talkers showed no group perceptual bias, but many individuals extended novel names across objects with the same surface texture. The implications of the results both for the role of attentional biases in object name learning and for the etiology of some late talking are discussed.      

Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15-20-month-olds

This research tested the hypothesis that young children's bias to generalize names for solid objects by shape is the product of statistical regularities among nouns in the early productive vocabulary. Data from a 4-layer Hopfield network suggested that the statistical regularities in the early noun vocabulary are strong enough to create a shape bias, and that the shape bias is overgeneralized to nonsolid stimuli. A 2nd simulation suggested that this overgeneralization is due to the dominance of names for shape-based categories in the early noun vocabulary. Two subsequent longitudinal experiments tested whether it is possible to create word learning biases in children. Children 15-20 months old were given intensive naming experiences with 12 noun categories typical of the types of categories children learn to name early. The children developed a precocious shape bias that was overgeneralized to naming nonsolid substances; they also showed accelerated vocabulary development. Children taught an atypical set of nouns or no new nouns did not develop a shape bias and did not show accelerated vocabulary development.     

The effects of type of instruction,animacy cues,and dimensionality of objects on the shape bias in 3‐ to 6‐year‐old children

Robust evidence exists for the shape bias, or children's tendency to extend novel names and categorize objects more readily on the basis of shape than on other object features. However, issues remain about the conditions that affect the shape bias and its importance as a linguistic device. In this research, we examined how type of instruction (common noun naming, proper noun naming, same kind, and goes with), animacy of objects (animate, inanimate), and dimensionality of objects (two‐dimensional, three‐dimensional) affect the shape bias in 3‐ to 6‐year‐old children. Overall, all children showed strong use of the shape bias with categorization (same kind, goes with) instructions, the former in line with the shape‐as‐cue theory. Additionally, the shape bias was quite robust in the inanimate condition, regardless of type of instruction or dimensionality of objects. However, in the animate condition, a proper noun naming instruction coupled with an animate object cue reduced the shape bias across both two‐ and three‐dimensional objects. Implications of these findings are presented.

Highlights

• This study assessed the “shape bias,” a linguistic strategy young children routinely use when confronted with the task of extending a novel name from one object to another.
• Novel name extension and categorization tasks were used in this study.
• Shape bias was affected by the type of instructions, animacy of objects, and dimensionality of objects.

     

It's Taking Shape: Shared Object Features Influence Novel Noun Generalizations

Children's early noun vocabularies are dominated by names for shape‐based categories. However, along with shape, material and colour are also important features of many early categories. In the current study, we investigate how the number of shared features among objects influences children's novel noun generalizations, explanations for these generalizations and spontaneous speech. Preschool children and adults were presented with test objects that shared only one feature (e.g. shape) or that shared two features (e.g. material and colour). After each trial, participants were asked, ‘how did you know that was your [novel name]?’ Overall, participants generalized novel names on the basis of shape more when objects shared shape and a second feature with the exemplar. All participants provided shape‐based explanations of their choices, but explanations were increasingly more abstract across development. Finally, children's spontaneous speech was dominated by references to the objects' shape, and this did not change across development or number of shared features. Overall, these data demonstrate that the shape bias is enhanced when objects share shape and a second feature but weakened for 3‐year‐old children when objects share two non‐shape features. These findings have implications for our understanding of how children learn names for objects that belong to multiple categories. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention

By the age of 3, children easily learn to name new objects, extending new names for unfamiliar objects by similarity in shape. Two experiments tested the proposal that experience in learning object names tunes children's attention to the properties relevant for naming—in the present case, to the property of shape—and thus facilitates the learning of more object names. In Experiment 1, a 9-week longitudinal study, 17-month-old children who repeatedly played with and heard names for members of unfamiliar object categories well organized by shape formed the generalization that only objects with similar shapes have the same name. Trained children also showed a dramatic increase in acquisition of new object names outside of the laboratory during the course of the study. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and showed that they depended on children's learning both a coherent category structure and object names. Thus, children who learn specific names for specific things in categories with a common organizing property—in this case, shape—also learn to attend to just the right property—in this case, shape—for learning more object names.     

How children name objects with shoes

Many studies report a shape bias in children's learning of object names. However, one previous study suggests that the shape bias is not the only perceptually based bias displayed by children learning count nouns. Specifically, children attended to texture as well as shape when extending a novel name to novel objects with eyes. Two experiments attempt to extend this finding, asking whether children will also attend to texture in the presence of another cue to animacy—shoes. In Experiment 1, 80 2- and 3-year-olds participated in either a Name generalization or Similarity judgment task. The novel objects were identical except that for half of the children the objects had shoes. In the Similarity condition, children made their judgments by overall similarity. In the Name condition, 2-year-olds extended the novel name by shape across objects both with and without shoes. In contrast, 3-year-olds generalized the novel name by shape when the objects had no shoes but by texture when the objects had shoes. Experiment 2 challenged this finding, using a forced choice procedure and objects that differed from the named exemplar more markedly in shape. Twenty 3-year-olds participated in a Name generalization task, half for objects with shoes, half for objects without shoes. Again, children attended reliably more to texture when the objects had shoes than when they had no shoes. The results are discussed in terms of the development of different perceptually based biases and the relation of such biases to a taxonomic bias in early word learning.     

What's in a shape? Children represent shape variability differently than adults when naming objects

Children and adults often generalize a word to objects of the same shape. However, the shape properties on which generalization is based are unknown. We investigated the degree to which two shape dimensions were represented categorically by children and adults when learning names for objects. Multidimensional scaling techniques were used to establish the perceptual similarity of two sets of objects in Experiment 1. In Experiments 2 and 3, children (from 2;8 to 4;5 years of age) and adults participated in two tasks in which they learned a novel name for an exemplar. We then examined how often the novel name was generalized to different objects and to line drawings of the objects. In one task, participants generalized the names from memory; in a second task the exemplar was in front of the participant during generalization. Adults accepted names more often to objects that fell "within" the proposed shape boundaries than to objects that fell "across" the boundaries. Children, however, were just as likely to generalize names to novel objects that fell within as to objects that crossed the boundaries.     

Children learn words easier when they are interested in the category to which the word belongs

The overall pattern of vocabulary development is relatively similar across children learning different languages. However, there are considerable differences in the words known to individual children. Historically, this variability has been explained in terms of differences in the input. Here, we examine the alternate possibility that children's individual interest in specific natural categories shapes the words they are likely to learn – a child who is more interested in animals will learn a new animal name easier relative to a new vehicle name. Two‐year‐old German‐learning children (N = 39) were exposed to four novel word–object associations for objects from four different categories. Prior to the word learning task, we measured their interest in the categories that the objects belonged to. Our measure was pupillary change following exposure to familiar objects from these four categories, with increased pupillary change interpreted as increased interest in that category. Children showed more robust learning of word–object associations from categories they were more interested in relative to categories they were less interested in. We further found that interest in the novel objects themselves influenced learning, with distinct influences of both category interest and object interest on learning. These results suggest that children's interest in different natural categories shapes their word learning. This provides evidence for the strikingly intuitive possibility that a child who is more interested in animals will learn novel animal names easier than a child who is more interested in vehicles.     

Children's reliance on creator's intent in extending names for artifacts

When children learn a name for a novel artifact, they tend to extend the name to other artifacts that share the same shape—a phenomenon known as the shape bias. The present studies investigated an intentional account of this bias. In Study 1, 3-year-olds were shown two objects of the same shape, and were given an explanation for why the objects were the same shape even though they were intended to be different kinds. The shape bias disappeared in children provided with this explanation. In Study2, 3-year-olds were shown triads of objects, and were either given no information about the function of a named target object, told the function that object could fulfill, or told the functions all three objects were intended to fulfill. Only in the third condition did children overcome a shape bias in favor of a function bias when extending the name of the target object. These findings indicate that 3-year-olds' shape bias results from intuitions about what artifacts were intended to be.     

Developmental Differences in the Naming of Contextually Non-Categorical Objects

This study investigates the naming process of contextually non-categorical objects in children from 3 to 9 plus 13-year-olds. 112 children participated in the study. Children were asked to narrate a story individually while looking at Mercer Mayer’s textless, picture book Frog, where are you? The narratives were audio recorded and transcribed. Texts were analyzed to find out how children at different ages name contextually non-categorical objects, tree and its parts in this case. Our findings revealed that increasing age in children is a positive factor in naming objects that are parts or extended forms of an object which itself constitutes a basic category in a certain context. Younger children used categorical names more frequently to refer to parts or disfigured forms of the object than older children and adults while older children and adults used specified names to refer to the parts or extended forms of the categorical names.     

Learning What to Remember: Vocabulary Knowledge and Children's Memory for Object Names and Features

Although young children can map a novel name to a novel object, it remains unclear what they actually remember about objects when they initially make such a name–object association. In the current study we investigated (1) what children remembered after they were initially introduced to name–object associations and (2) how their vocabulary size and vocabulary structure influenced what they remembered. As a group, children had difficulty remembering each of the features of the original novel objects. Further analyses revealed that differences in vocabulary structure predicted children's ability to remember object features. Specifically, children who produced many names for categories organized by similarity in shape (e.g. ball, cup) had the best memory for newly‐learned objects' features—especially their shapes. In addition, the more features children remembered, the more likely they were to retain the newly learned name–object associations. Vocabulary size, however, was not predictive of children's feature memory or retention. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that children's existing vocabulary structure, rather than simply vocabulary size, influences what they attend to when encountering a new object and subsequently their ability to remember new name–object associations. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

They call it like they see it: spontaneous naming and attention to shape

Two experiments explore children's spontaneous labeling of novel objects as a method to study early lexical access. The experiments also provide new evidence on children's attention to object shape when labeling objects. In Experiment 1, the spontaneous productions of 21 23- to 28-month-olds (mean 26;28) shown a set of novel, unnamed objects were analyzed both in terms of the specific words said and, via adult judgments, their likely perceptual basis. We found that children's spontaneous names were cued by the perceptual feature of shape. Experiment 2 examines the relation between spontaneous productions, name generalizations in a structured task, and vocabulary development in a group of children between 17 and 24 months of age (mean 21;6). Results indicate that object shape plays an important role in both spontaneous productions and novel noun generalization, but contrary to current hypotheses, children may name objects by shape from the earliest points of productive vocabulary development and this tendency may not be lexically specific.     

Frege on Syntax,Ontology, and Truth's Pride of Place

Frege's strict alignment between his syntactic and ontological categories is not, as is commonly assumed, some kind of a philosophical thesis. There is no thesis that proper names refer only to objects, say, or that what refers to an object is a proper name. Rather, the alignment of categories is internal to Frege's conception of what syntax and ontology are. To understand this, we need to recognise the pride of place Frege assigns within his theorising to the notion of truth. For both language and the world, the Fregean categories are logical categories, categories, that is, of truth. The elaboration of this point makes clear the incoherence of supposing that they might not align.     

Variable Names and Constant Names in Wittgenstein's Tractatus

In this paper, I argue that the Tractatus classifies names into constant names and variable names. A variable name, via the application of the existential quantifier against the background of picturing, picks out and denotes an unspecified object from the range of objects of the form shown by the relevant variable. A constant name labels an object picked out from a scope of the existential quantifier. I also refute two types of attempts to argue that the Tractarian relation between a name and its meaning is not realist, and to explain why it is more reasonable to hold that it is.     

Ontological categories and function: Acquisition of new names

This study asks whether knowledge of the functional properties of a referent for a new name influences children's first guesses about whether that name refers to an object or a substance. Recent work on children's categorization suggests that children differentiate concrete objects from nonsolid substances and that their initial hypotheses about the meanings of new words are affected by this knowledge of ontological categories. In addition, some research has suggested that children approach new words with a set of biases that constrain the possible meanings of those words. Most of this work has presented children with new names in the absence of explicit information about the functional characteristics of new referents. Our hypothesis was that if children are shown the functional properties of referents, they should use that information in making their first guesses about the meanings of new words. Seventy-two 3- and 4-year-olds were shown new items with new names and were tested on their extension of each new name either to a similarly shaped item made of a different material or to a differently shaped item made of the same material. Some subjects were shown a “shape-linked” function, some a “substance-linked” function, and some no function at all. One third of the subjects heard the new names presented with count syntax, one third with mass syntax, and one third with neutral syntax. Results suggest that children do not rely on a single source of information in extending new names, but, rather, draw on various kinds of information, including the perceptual characteristics of the entities themselves and the syntax of the input.     

Testing a word is not a test of word learning

Although vocabulary acquisition requires children learn names for multiple things, many investigations of word learning mechanisms teach children the name for only one of the objects presented. This is problematic because it is unclear whether children's performance reflects recall of the correct name–object association or simply selection of the only object that was singled out by being the only object named. Children introduced to one novel name may perform at ceiling as they are not required to discriminate on the basis of the name per se, and appear to rapidly learn words following minimal exposure to a single word. We introduced children to four novel objects. For half the children, only one of the objects was named and for the other children, all four objects were named. Only children introduced to one word reliably selected the target object at test. This demonstration highlights the over-simplicity of one-word learning paradigms and the need for a shift in word learning paradigms where more than one word is taught to ensure children disambiguate objects on the basis of their names rather than their degree of salience.     

Constraint on word-learning constraints

Many researchers have agreed that word learning in young children is guided by so-called "word-learning principles." However, these principles may make it difficult to learn a substantial part of the lexicon unless they are appropriately controlled. To learn proper names, the taxonomic assumption and/or the shape bias must be overridden; to learn names for substances, withdrawal of the whole-object assumption and/or the shape bias is required; and to learn lexical hierarchies, the mutual exclusivity assumption must be suspended. In certain languages, syntax can provide useful information in this situation. For example, if a novel noun is given to an object for which the name is known in the syntactic frame "This is X," English-speaking children may assume the noun to be a proper noun, and this will help them override the taxonomic assumption. However, this information is not available to Japanese children, since the Japanese language does not have grammatical markers to flag the distinction between count nouns and mass nouns, or the distinction between proper nouns and common nouns. In this paper, I discuss how Japanese children get around this problem.     

Conditions under which function information attenuates name extension via shape

Children often extend names to novel artifacts on the basis of overall shape rather than core properties (e.g., function). This bias is claimed to reflect the fact that nonrandom structure is a reliable cue to an object having a specific designed function. In this article, we show that information about an object's design (i.e., about its creator's intentions) is neither necessary nor sufficient for children to override the shape bias. Children extend names on the basis of any information specifying the artifact's function (e.g., information about design, current use, or possible use), especially when this information is made salient when candidate objects for extension are introduced. Possible mechanisms via which children come to rely less on easily observable cues (e.g., shape) and more on core properties (e.g., function) are discussed.     

Comparison Facilitates Children's Learning of Names for Parts

Learning names for parts of objects can be challenging for children, as it requires overcoming their tendency to name whole objects. We test whether comparing items can facilitate learning names for their parts. Applying the structure-mapping theory of comparison leads to two predictions: (a) young children will find it easier to identify a common part between two very similar items than between two dissimilar items (because the similar pair is easier to align); (b) close alignments potentiate far alignments: children will be better able to extend a novel part name to a dissimilar object after having extended it to a similar object. In three studies, 227 preschool children mapped novel part terms to new animals or objects. Both predictions were confirmed. Children more accurately extended novel part terms to objects that were similar to the standard than to objects that were dissimilar (Experiments 1 and 2), and children more accurately extended novel part names to dissimilar objects after having extended them to similar objects (Experiment 3). We conclude that structure-mapping processes can support part learning.     

Novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to novel objects

What is the source of the mutual exclusivity bias whereby infants map novel labels onto novel objects? In an intermodal preferential looking task, we found that novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to a novel object over a familiar object. In contrast, familiar labels and a neutral phrase gradually reduced attention to a novel object. Markman (1989, 1990) argued that infants must recall the name of a familiar object to exclude it as the referent of a novel label. We argue that 10-month-olds’ attention is guided by the novelty of objects and labels rather than knowledge of the names for familiar objects. Mutual exclusivity, as a language-specific bias, might emerge from a more general constraint on attention and learning.