The absence of a shape bias in children's word learning.

There is debate about whether preschool-age children interpret words as referring to kinds or to classes defined by shape similarity. The authors argue that the shape bias reported in previous studies is a task-induced artifact rather than a genuine word-learning strategy. In particular, children were forced to extend an object's novel label to one of several stand-alone, simple-shaped items, including a same-shape option from a different category and a different-shape option from the same superordinate category. Across 6 experiments, the authors found that the shape bias was eliminated (a) when the objects were more complex, (b) when they were presented in context, or (c) when children were no longer forced to choose. Moreover, children preferred the different-shape category alternatives when these were part of the same basic-level category as the target. The present experiments suggest that children seek out objects of the same kind when presented with a novel label, even if they are sometimes unable to identify the relevant kinds on their own.

[1]  A. Luchins,et al.  New Experimental Attempts at Preventing Mechanization in Problem Solving , 1950 .

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

[3]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age ☆ , 1979 .

[4]  E. Markman,et al.  Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. , 1980 .

[5]  R. Sternberg Advances in the psychology of human intelligence , 1982 .

[6]  C. Mervis,et al.  Order of acquisition of subordinate-, basic-, and superordinate-level categories. , 1982 .

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

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

[9]  C. Mervis Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. , 1987 .

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

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

[12]  U. Neisser Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[13]  G. Murphy,et al.  Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: what a superordinate is good for. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

[16]  Count Nouns, Adjectives, and Perceptual Properties in Children's Novel Word Interpretations , 1992 .

[17]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Syntactic context and the shape bias in children's and adults' lexical learning , 1992 .

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

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

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

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

[22]  Sandra R. Waxman,et al.  Words as Invitations to Form Categories: Evidence from 12- to 13-Month-Old Infants , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  P. Zelazo,et al.  An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them ☆ , 1996 .

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

[25]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Why is a pomegranate an apple? The role of shape, taxonomic relatedness, and prior lexical knowledge in children's overextensions of apple and dog , 1996, Journal of Child Language.

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

[27]  J. Henderson,et al.  High-level scene perception. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  David M. Sobel,et al.  Detecting blickets: how young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. , 2000, Child development.

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

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

[31]  Wayne D. Gray Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2001 .

[32]  Y. Munakata,et al.  All Together Now: When Dissociations Between Knowledge and Action Disappear , 2001, Psychological science.

[33]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Individuation, relativity, and early word learning , 2001 .

[34]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Relational concepts in form–function mapping , 2001 .

[35]  S. Graham,et al.  The influence of shape similarity and shared labels on infants' inductive inferences about nonobvious object properties. , 2001, Child development.

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

[37]  D. Amso,et al.  Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[38]  L. Markson,et al.  Children's Reliance on Creator's Intent in Extending Names for Artifacts , 2003, Psychological science.

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

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