Children construct novel word meaning ad-hoc based on known words: Computational model of shape and material biases

Taking the stance that two well-known word learning biases (shape and material bias) are formed through learning (learned bias account, LBA), we illustrated a concrete computational mechanism with ''ad-hoc meaning substitution (AMS)'' hypothesis, and verified it by two computer simulations. AMS represents that when given a novel word and a corresponding instance, children create novel word meaning by using the known word meaning and the instance as an ad-hoc template. The AMS function enables fast mapping and vocabulary spurt. To describe the AMS process computationally, we introduced ''word distributional prototype (WDP),'' which is the explicit representation of word meaning with an inductive learning function. Simulation 1 revealed that when a network with WDP and AMS was given a biased vocabulary reflecting young children, it demonstrated shape, material, and overgeneralized shape biases. This result suggested that a triad of word meaning induction, ad-hoc meaning substitution, and early biased vocabulary is essential for the emergence of biases. Simulation 2 introduced the notion of maturity that denoted a degree of learning convergence for each word meaning, and then the network showed neither shape nor material bias during an early small vocabulary. This result indicated that the period at which each bias emerges is decided by maturity. Though AMS consists of simpler and valider mechanisms than those proposed in previous studies, it could reproduce behavior of shape and material biases and explain their emergence process clearly. These results suggest that phenomena concerning shape and material biases are explicable with a simple ad-hoc learning instead of meta-learning among LBA or innate language-specific ones.

[1]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Knowledge, Performance, and Task: Décalage and Dynamics in Young Children's Noun Generalizations , 2006 .

[2]  D. Roy Grounding words in perception and action: computational insights , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  E. Spelke,et al.  Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms , 1991, Cognition.

[4]  Giyoo Hatano,et al.  Young Children's Spontaneous Personification as Analogy. , 1987 .

[5]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Children's attention to rigid and deformable shape in naming and non-naming tasks. , 2000, Child development.

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

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

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

[9]  Mutsurni Irnai,et al.  A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning : universal ontology and linguistic influence , 1994 .

[10]  P. Bloom,et al.  How specific is the shape bias? , 2003, Child development.

[11]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Variability in early communicative development. , 1994, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

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

[13]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in children's learning in novel words for objects and substances , 1999 .

[14]  David K. Dickinson Learning names for materials: Factors constraining and limiting hypotheses about word meaning ☆ , 1988 .

[15]  Jun Saiki,et al.  A Connectionist Account of Ontological Boundary Shifting , 2004, ICONIP.

[16]  Susan Carey,et al.  Acquiring a Single New Word , 1978 .

[17]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[18]  M. V. Velzen,et al.  Self-organizing maps , 2007 .

[19]  J. Mandler,et al.  Concept formation in infancy , 1993 .

[20]  L. Smith,et al.  A model of perceptual classification in children and adults. , 1989, Psychological review.

[21]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15-20-month-olds. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

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

[23]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? , 1999, Cognition.

[24]  S. Hidaka,et al.  A mechanism of ontological boundary shifting , 2004 .

[25]  J. Mandler,et al.  Separating the sheep from the goats: Differentiating global categories , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[27]  Takashi Omori,et al.  Computational Modeling of Word Learning Biases by using Known Words Meanings , 2005 .

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

[29]  Charles A. Nelson,et al.  Basic and applied perspectives on learning, cognition, and development , 1995 .

[30]  D. Hall Naming Solids and Nonsolids: Children's Default Construals. , 1996 .

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

[32]  E. Markman,et al.  Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[34]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. , 1987 .

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

[36]  Kayoko Inagaki,et al.  Attributing human characteristics: Developmental changes in over- and underattribution , 1988 .