Ways of Acquiring Word Meanings I Sources of

Ways of Acquiring Word Meanings I. Sources of information about a word’s meaning: A. Syntax B. Linguistic context C. Nonlinguistic context D. Speaker’s behavior (e. g. , eyegaze, gestures) E. Prior Knowledge F. Intonation II. Many such sources are weak or unavailable to children first acquiring language III. The problem of induction IV. Constraints as a partial solution A. The whole object assumption B. The taxonomic assumption C. Mutual exclusivity

Woodward--18 month olds Remember Spelke’s criteria for what makes a good object. Woodward’s dynamic displays (e. g. lava flowing, liquids diffusing) violated these criteria. .

The taxonomic assumption: Children extend a novel term to entities of the same kind. They extend object labels to other similar objects, rather than to objects that are thematically related. Why is there a need for such an assumption?

Mututal exclusivity: children prefer to have only one category label for each object. children should resist second labels for objects indirect word learning possible: children can infer the appropriate referent for an object helps overcome the whole object assumption freeing children to learn terms for parts, substance, color, etc.

Indirect word learning results: Evidence for a lexical or pragmatic constraint? Pragmatic principles suggested as alternatives to mutual exclusivity: Lexical gap filling If she meant “x, ” she would have said “x”.

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 1. Mean percent of trials in Study 1 on which the visible familiar toy was selected according to age

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 2. Mean percent of trials in Study 1 on which babies searched according to age

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 3. Mean percent of trials in Study 1 on which the visible familiar toy was selected according to babies’ vocabulary level

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 4. Mean percent of trials in Study 1 on which babies searched according to vocabulary level

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 5. Mean percent of trials in Study 2 on which the visible familiar toy was indicated according to age

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 6. Mean percent of trials in Study 2 on which babies searched according to age

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 7. Mean percent of trials in Study 2 on which babies indicated the visible familiar toy according to vocabulary level

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 8. Mean percent of trials in Study 2 on which babies searched according to vocabulary level

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 9. Percentages of babies in Study 3 who searched according to age

Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 241 -275 Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners Markman, Wasow and Hansen Table 10. Percentages of babies in Study 3 who searched according to vocabulary level

Rejection of second labels

Enables children to reject a second label for the whole object, thereby freeing them to learn terms for parts, substances, color etc.

Katz, Baker, & Macnamara Percent of target object choices Girls (22 mos) Common Noun Proper Noun Dolls 48 75 Blocks 44 48 Boys Dolls 47 51 Blocks 42 55