|
Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, B11-B20. Gelman, S.A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103. Waxman, S.R. & Booth, A.E. (2001). Seeing pink elephants: Fourteen-month-olds’ interpretations of novel nouns and adjectives. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 217-242. Editorial Paper: Word Learning Summary/Common Threads Children’s word learning and categorization have been extensively studied in developmental research. At a very early age, infants learn to distinguish nouns from other forms of speech. Infants are constantly exposed to novel words and in order to interpret the meanings of these words, they rely on a number of cues. Infants also use cues when categorizing familiar and novel objects. Some of these cues include shape, color, and context as well as more subtle ones like pragmatics. Studies have shown that naming increases infants’ attention to objects (Baldwin & Markman, 1989) as well as aids in their categorization for the same objects. Much research has been conducted in this area. The following articles each investigated a specific aspect of categorization and/or word learning involving children aged from 16 months to 5 years. Each adds a new perspective to the existing literature and provides a new understanding of this complicated developmental issue. Waxman and Booth questioned how 14-month-old infants’ categorizations of a target object would be influenced when the object was presented as belonging to a single category or sharing a common object property (color or texture) with other presented objects. The infants were presented with an object, which was named with a count noun or an adjective. The influence of this naming on the infants’ categorization judgments was measured. When infants heard a novel count noun, they focused more attention on the category-based rather than the property-based similarities between the objects. When they heard a novel adjective, they attended to both the category-based and property-based similarities. When the property cue was color, infants extended nouns to familiar objects more often during category trials than property trials and extended adjectives an equal amount in both types of trials. However, when the property cue was texture, infants extended adjectives to familiar objects more often on the property trials than on the category trials. Gelman and Bloom examined the effect of creator intention on children’s decisions about how to name objects. The purpose of their study was to determine whether children and adults would give different names to identical objects based solely on what they knew about how the objects were made. Gelman and Bloom hypothesized that objects described as intentionally created would be given names that corresponded to the form of the objects, but that objects described as accidentally created would be labeled according to the material with which they were made. They found when the objects were perceived as intentionally created, children were more likely to give a naming response, rather than a material response, than when the objects were seen as accidentally created. The authors concluded that intentionality is more important in determining naming than perceptual information. Nazzi and Gopnik investigated 16 and 20-month-old infants’ abilities to form new object categories. Infants were presented with novel objects and with visual or naming cues to use in their categorization. It was found that both 16 and 20-month-old infants used visual cues to categorize novel objects. The naming cues were only used by the 20-month-olds. The relationship between the productive vocabulary size of the infants and their use of naming cues was also examined. As would be expected, a positive correlation was found, but only for 20 month-olds. For 16 month-olds a negative correlation was found, with increased vocabulary size related to less use of naming cues. All three of these studies address infants’ and children’s use of language in determining how objects should be categorized. The evidence gathered demonstrates that naming influences children’s category formation in a number of ways and that children use many sources of information to determine object categories. Specifically, featural, naming, and pragmatic (intentionality) cues were found to be influential on children’s categorization. Naming was important in all three studies, although in a much more subtle way in Gelman and Bloom’s study. Importantly, the effects of naming were demonstrated using both novel (Nazzi and Gopnik) and familiar objects (Waxman and Booth). The three studies also used different paradigms, strengthening support for the large effect naming has on categorization. Lastly, these studies provide a good developmental framework, since the children ranged in age from infancy to preschool age. Discussion Points and Issues In relation to Nazzi and Gopnik, a concern was raised about the working memory capacity of 16 month-old infants. It is possible that the demands of the naming task were too great for this age group. The ability to successfully complete this task, considering the high demands, may not develop until 20 months of age. In order to control for task demands, it was suggested that a visual task, with equivalent demands to the naming task be created and used in the study. Another concern was whether or not infants are actually mapping the novel name to the novel object or simply associating the phonological sounds of the novel words with the object. If an infant is not making a representation of the object when the name is heard, the findings could simply be a result of an infant having good phonological short-term memory. A previously read study regarding children’s understanding of homophones was also discussed. In this previous study, older children had a difficult time distinguishing between homophones, yet in Nazzi and Gopnik, 20-month-olds extended a novel name to an object after previously hearing it associated to another object. The issue of homophone and metacognitive awareness may play a role in teasing apart these conflicting findings. Another discussion point was the authors’ blatant disregard for the interesting correlational pattern found in 16-month-olds. Why would productive vocabulary size be negatively related to the use of naming cues? Again metacognitive awareness may play a role. The children with increased awareness may experience more confusion and interference when presented with an object that is given the same name as a previously viewed object. However, this does not seem all that likely at such a young age. Another issue is that productive vocabulary size was measured through parental self-report, which may not be very accurate. Lastly, the finding could be a result of the development and use of concept strategies. At the two ages, infants could be relying on different strategies, or strategy use may not develop until the infants reach 20 months of age. During the discussion of the Gelman and Bloom study, the class discussed the possible reasons people have for describing the same objects using different names. One possibility is that social demands influence naming. In different social situations, only certain names are appropriate to use. Expertise may also play a role in choosing names for objects. Someone who possesses a great deal of knowledge about a category of objects may use different or more specific names for members of the category than someone without that knowledge. The class also discussed situations in which the material of objects matters to adults. When making an object, the properties of the object are important to knowing how to construct it. When interacting with an object, the material may also be an important concern. For example, when using a table to stand on, one must be concerned with the material with which it is made. Also, someone with food allergies would consider the ingredients or material of the food very important. Despite these instances, the class concluded that intention is a dominant factor over material when choosing a name for an object. In other words, function wins out over material. Another point that was raised was that when the function of the object changes, the category should also change. However, when the material changes, the category may not directly change. Due to lack of time, the discussion of the Waxman and Booth article was abbreviated. One concern that was raised was whether or not the effect found in the study was really one of noun versus adjective or simply the effect of noun versus an unfamiliar part of speech. It is possible that infants did not understand the function of adjectives and that this caused the pattern of results. It was suggested that in a warm-up condition, the experimenters should have focused the infants’ attention on the properties and the features of the objects and then tested their understanding of the adjectives more explicitly. Another issue raised was the authors’ choice to use unfamiliar adjectives to describe properties of the objects. Infants may have already understood names for some of the properties, such as color. In these cases, the infants would assume that the novel adjective was not referring to the color of the object, thus they would not be attending to that cue. It would have useful to perform the study using actual color names to see if the same results would have been found. Future Directions for Research The development of better methodology and research paradigms should be the focus for future research in this area. Specifically, the influence of parents is an area of great concern. These studies often have parents hold the infants and/or allow them to be present during the experimental manipulations. Critics believe that parents will influence their child’s performance. For example, when an infants’ novelty preference is being measured through reaching, a parent may influence the direction in which the infant will reach by moving their leg or leaning in a certain direction. For most parents, this may simply be a natural, unconscious response to aid their infant, however it can have serious effects on the data. Another concern is that parents do not accurately report information about their children as evidenced in the Nazzi and Gopnik study. Future research should also look to more longitudinal data to help explain the developmental trends found in categorization and word learning. A study which tracked a group of children from infancy until adolescence would help to clarify some of the conflicting findings and give researchers a better understanding of the developmental processes involved. Studying infants and children is a complicated and challenging process. It takes a lot of time and careful planning to accurately measure aspects of children’s awareness and skill. Despite the many challenges, researchers continue to persevere and new information is constantly being discovered. Infant and child researchers need to be encouraged and praised for their continued efforts and successes. |
|
This page was last updated: |