Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T16:37:29.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object permanence and relational words: a lexical training study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michael Tomasello  and
Michael Jeffrey Farrar
Michael Tomasello
Affiliation:
Emory University
Michael Jeffrey Farrar
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Observational/correlational research has established that children in stage 5 object permanence development use words that refer to the visible movement of objects, while it is not until stage 6 that they use words referring to the invisible movement of objects (e.g. gone). It is not clear, however, whether the cognitive competence evidenced by performance in the object permanence task is a prerequisite for these linguistic productions or whether they both emerge simultaneously from some underlying representation. The current study used a lexical training paradigm to teach object words, visible movement words, and invisible movement words to children at stage 5 and stage 6 object permanence development. Stage 6 children learned all three types of words equally well. Stage 5 children learned object and visible movement words, especially in comprehension, but did not learn the invisible movement word. These results indicate that the cognitive structures underlying performance in the object permanence task are genuine prerequisites for learning these types of words.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 495 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols: cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). Afirst language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates of language: differential criteria yield differential results. ChDev 50. 617–31.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1981). The effects of task and practice on search for invisibly displaced objects. DevRev 1. 1–17.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1984). The acquisition of gone and the development of the object concept. JChLang 11. 273–92.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, A. (1984). Semantic and cognitive development in 15- to 21-month old children. JChLang 11. 495–513.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1976). Meaning in child language. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
McCall, R. (1977). Challenges to a science of developmental psychology. ChDev 48. 333–44.Google Scholar
McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). The cognitive bases of relational words in the single word period. JChLang 8. 15–34.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. & Bonvillian, J. D. (1973). Concepts and words in the two-year-old: acquisition of concept names under controlled conditions. Cognition 2. 435–50.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. G. & Leonard, L. B. (1982). Do children pick and choose? An examination of phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition JChLang 9. 319–36.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. G. & Terrel, B. Y. (1983). The role of input frequency in lexical acquisition. JChLang 10. 57–66.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Farrar, M. J. (1984). Cognitive bases of lexical development: object permanence and relational words. JChLang 11. 477–493.Google Scholar
Uzgiris, I. & Hunt, J. McV. (1975). Assessment in infancy: ordinal scales of psychological development. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar