Information learned from generic language becomes central to children’s biological concepts: Evidence from their open-ended explanations

Generic sentences (e.g., "Snakes have holes in their teeth") convey that a property (e.g., having holes in one's teeth) is true of a category (e.g., snakes). We test the hypothesis that, in addition to this basic aspect of their meaning, generic sentences also imply that the information they express is more conceptually central than the information conveyed in similar non-generic sentences (e.g., "This snake has holes in his teeth"). To test this hypothesis, we elicited 4- and 5-year-old children's open-ended explanations for generic and non-generic versions of the same novel properties. Based on arguments in the categorization literature, we assumed that, relative to more peripheral properties, properties that are understood as conceptually central would be explained more often as causes and less often as effects of other features, behaviors, or processes. Two experiments confirmed the prediction that preschool-age children construe novel information learned from generics as more conceptually central than the same information learned from non-generics. Additionally, Experiment 2 suggested that the conceptual status of novel properties learned from generic sentences becomes similar to that of familiar properties that are already at the category core. These findings illustrate the power of generic language to shape children's concepts.

[1]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  The Spanish ser/estar distinction in bilingual children's reasoning about human psychological characteristics. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[2]  Lisa M. Oakes,et al.  Early Category and Concept Development: Making Sense of the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion , 2008 .

[3]  S. Gelman Learning from others: children's construction of concepts. , 2009, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  Sandeep Prasada,et al.  Representation of Principled Connections: A Window Onto the Formal Aspect of Common Sense Conception , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  E. Markman,et al.  Subtle Linguistic Cues Affect Children's Motivation , 2007, Psychological science.

[6]  Sandra R Waxman,et al.  Mother-child conversations about pictures and objects: referring to categories and individuals. , 2005, Child development.

[7]  P. Bloom Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human , 2004 .

[8]  W. Ahn,et al.  Causal status effect in children's categorization , 2000, Cognition.

[9]  C. Chambers,et al.  When hearsay trumps evidence: How generic language guides preschoolers’ inferences about unfamiliar things , 2008 .

[10]  J. Stevenson The cultural origins of human cognition , 2001 .

[11]  F. Keil Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[12]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[13]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .

[14]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Feature centrality and property induction , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  S. Gelman,et al.  Beyond labeling: the role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. , 1991, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[16]  D. Medin,et al.  Comments on part I: psychological essentialism , 1989 .

[17]  Susan A. Gelman,et al.  Theory-based categorization in early childhood: Making sense of the booming, buzzing confusion , 2003 .

[18]  Paul Bloom,et al.  Developmental changes in the understanding of generics , 2007, Cognition.

[19]  W. Ahn,et al.  Causal Status as a Determinant of Feature Centrality , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  Carrot-Eaters and Creature-Believers: The Effects of Lexicalization on Children's Inferences About Social Categories , 1999 .

[21]  S. Gelman,et al.  The Essential Child : Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought , 2003 .

[22]  D. Gentner The development of relational category knowledge , 2005 .

[23]  Andrei Cimpian,et al.  Preschool children’s use of cues to generic meaning , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  D. Medin,et al.  Context and structure in conceptual combination , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  T. Lombrozo Explanation and categorization: How “why?” informs “what?” , 2009, Cognition.

[26]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. , 1988 .

[27]  Sandra R. Waxman,et al.  Weaving a Lexicon , 2004 .

[28]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  W. Ahn Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts?: the role of causal status in determining feature centrality , 1998, Cognition.

[30]  S. Carey,et al.  Functional explanation and the function of explanation , 2006, Cognition.

[31]  A. Gopnik The scientist in the crib , 1999 .

[32]  Jon Star,et al.  Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[33]  T. Lombrozo The structure and function of explanations , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  J. Fox Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods , 1997 .

[35]  S. Gelman,et al.  Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. , 2003, Child development.

[36]  Barbara W Sarnecka,et al.  Generic Language in Parent-Child Conversations , 2008, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[37]  Alison Gopnik,et al.  Explanation as Orgasm* , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[38]  D. C. Howell Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

[39]  Marianne G. Taylor,et al.  Mother-child conversations about gender : understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs , 2004 .

[40]  Sandeep Prasada,et al.  Acquiring generic knowledge , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  S. Carey Conceptual Change in Childhood , 1985 .

[42]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction , 1989 .

[43]  M. Banaji,et al.  Being What You Say: The Effect of Essentialist Linguistic Labels on Preferences , 2004 .

[44]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Sandeep Prasada,et al.  Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception , 2006, Cognition.

[46]  Susan A. Gelman,et al.  Learning Words for Kinds: Generic Noun Phrases in Acquisition. , 2004 .

[47]  Twila Tardif,et al.  A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin , 1998, Cognition.

[48]  A. Gopnik,et al.  The scientist in the crib : minds, brains, and how children learn , 1999 .

[49]  D. C. Howell Statistical methods for psychology, 3rd ed. , 1992 .

[50]  W. Ahn,et al.  Demystifying Theory-based Categorization , 2002 .

[51]  S. Gelman,et al.  Generic noun phrases in mother–child conversations , 1998, Journal of Child Language.

[52]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  Generic language and judgements about category membership: Can generics highlight properties as central? , 2009, Language and cognitive processes.

[53]  P. Harris The Cognitive Basis of Science: What do children learn from testimony? , 2002 .

[54]  S. Gelman The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[55]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The origins of an autonomous biology. , 1992 .

[56]  Jon R. Star,et al.  Children's Use of Generics in Inductive Inferences , 2002 .

[57]  P. Harris,et al.  Trust in testimony: how children learn about science and religion. , 2006, Child development.

[58]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[59]  D. Kelemen Function, goals and intention: children’s teleological reasoning about objects , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.