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 Study 2, 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.

[1]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo?: A study of early word meaning using artificial objects , 1978 .

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

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

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

[5]  Dare A. Baldwin,et al.  Clarifying the role of shape in children's taxonomic assumption. , 1992, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[6]  W. Merriman,et al.  An appearance-function shift in children's object naming , 1993, Journal of Child Language.

[7]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The place of perception in children's concepts ☆ , 1993 .

[8]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Children's Theories of Word Meaning: The Role of Shape Similarity in Early Acquisition , 1994 .

[9]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Principle-Based Inferences in Young Children's Categorization: Revisiting the Impact of Function on the Naming of Artifacts. , 1995 .

[10]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? , 1996, Cognition.

[11]  P. Bloom.  Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[12]  Susan A Gelman,et al.  Shape and representational status in children's early naming , 1998, Cognition.

[13]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name , 1998 .

[14]  Lori Markson,et al.  Intention and Analogy in Children's Naming of Pictorial Representations , 1998 .

[15]  L. D. Williams,et al.  Preschoolers' and adults' reliance on object shape and object function for lexical extension. , 1999, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[16]  P. Bloom.  How children learn the meanings of words , 2000 .

[17]  Nell K. Duke,et al.  Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. , 2000, Child development.

[18]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Young children's use of functional information to categorize artifacts: three factors that matter , 2000, Cognition.

[19]  Aneta Pavlenko.  What's in a concept? , 2000, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[20]  Paul Bloom,et al.  Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it , 2000, Cognition.

[21]  S. Prasada,et al.  Conceiving of entities as objects and as stuff , 2002, Cognition.