Preschoolers’ Novel Noun Extensions: Shape in Spite of Knowing Better

We examined the puzzling research findings that when extending novel nouns, preschoolers rely on shape similarity (rather than categorical relations) while in other task contexts (e.g., property induction) they rely on categorical relations. Taking into account research on children’s word learning, categorization, and inductive inference we assume that preschoolers have both a shape-based and a category-based word extension strategy available and can switch between these two depending on which information is easily available. To this end, we tested preschoolers on two versions of a novel-noun label extension task. First, we paralleled the standard extension task commonly used by previous research. In this case, as expected, preschoolers predominantly selected same-shape items. Second, we supported preschoolers’ retrieval of item-related information from memory by asking them simple questions about each item prior to the label extension task. Here, they switched to a category-based strategy, thus, predominantly selecting same-category items. Finally, we revealed that this shape-to-category shift is specific to the word learning context as we did not find it in a non-lexical classification task. These findings support our assumption that preschoolers’ decision about word extension change in accordance with the availability of information (from task context or by memory retrieval). We conclude by suggesting that preschoolers’ noun extensions can be conceptualized within the framework of heuristic decision-making. This provides an ecologically plausible processing account with respect to which information is selected and how this information is integrated to act as a guideline for decision-making when novel words have to be generalized.

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

[2]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  WHAT'S IN A WORD? ON THE CHILD'S ACQUISITION OF SEMANTICS IN HIS FIRST LANGUAGE , 1973 .

[3]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The Self-organization of Skilled Noun Learning the Attentional Learning Account , 2022 .

[4]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[5]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Why Heuristics Work , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[7]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  Preschoolers' use of superordinate relations in classification and language , 1986 .

[8]  S. Waxman,et al.  Conceptual information permeates word learning in infancy. , 2005, Developmental psychology.

[9]  E. Markman,et al.  Categories and induction in young children , 1986, Cognition.

[10]  S. Waxman,et al.  Early word-learning entails reference, not merely associations , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Megan J. Bulloch,et al.  What makes relational reasoning smart? Revisiting the perceptual-to-relational shift in the development of generalization. , 2009, Developmental science.

[12]  S. Waxman,et al.  Nouns mark category relations: toddlers' and preschoolers' word-learning biases. , 1990, Child development.

[13]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

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

[15]  E. Markman,et al.  Young children's inductions from natural kinds: the role of categories and appearances. , 1987, Child development.

[16]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  Preschool children's use of novel predicates to make inductive inferences about people , 2000 .

[17]  Susan A. Gelman,et al.  Inferring Properties from Categories versus Inferring Categories from Properties: The Case of Gender. , 1986 .

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

[19]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Shape and the first hundred nouns. , 2004, Child development.

[20]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Categorization, Label Extension, and Inductive Reasoning in Chinese and German Preschoolers: Influence of a Classifier System and Universal Cognitive Constraints , 2006 .

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

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

[23]  H. Wellman,et al.  Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious , 1991, Cognition.

[24]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object name Learning Provides On-the-Job Training for Attention , 2002, Psychological science.

[26]  G. Deák,et al.  The dynamics of preschoolers' categorization choices. , 1996, Child development.

[27]  Roberta Michnick Golinkoff,et al.  Young Children Extend Novel Words at the Basic Level: Evidence for the Principle of Categorical Scope. , 1995 .

[28]  E. Markman,et al.  The absence of a shape bias in children's word learning. , 2005, Developmental psychology.

[29]  E. Markman,et al.  Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  D. Gentner,et al.  Comparison in the Development of Categories , 1999 .

[31]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: a role for associative learning. , 2005, Psychological review.

[32]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[33]  A. Bröder,et al.  Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  D. Gentner,et al.  Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: young children's use of comparison in category learning. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[35]  Dcdre Centner On Relational Meaning : The Acquisition of Verb Meaning , 2003 .

[36]  G. Deák Hunting the Fox of Word Learning: Why "Constraints" Fail To Capture It. , 2000 .

[37]  Eliana Colunga,et al.  Knowledge as Process: Contextually Cued Attention and Early Word Learning , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  S. Waxman,et al.  Word learning is ‘smart’: evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers' extension of novel words , 2002, Cognition.

[39]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  Preschool children's use of trait labels to make inductive inferences. , 2000, Journal of experimental child psychology.

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

[41]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Are Chinese and German Children Taxonomic, Thematic, or Shape Biased? Influence of Classifiers and Cultural Contexts , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[42]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Bayesian Special Section Learning Overhypotheses with Hierarchical Bayesian Models , 2022 .

[43]  Melissa Bowerman,et al.  The acquisition of word meaning: An investigation into some current conflicts , 1978 .

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

[45]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Dynamic Noun Generalization: Moment-to-Moment Interactions Shape Children's Naming Biases. , 2007 .