Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:26:27.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Young children's flexible use of semantic cues to word meanings: converging evidence of individual and age differences*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2013

GEDEON O. DEÁK  and
GAYATHRI NARASIMHAM
GEDEON O. DEÁK*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
GAYATHRI NARASIMHAM
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Address for correspondence: Gedeon O. Deák, Dept. of Cognitive Science, 9500 Gilman Dr., University of California, San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0515, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new test of children's flexible use of semantic cues for word learning extended previous results. In Experiment 1, three- to five-year-olds (N=51) completed two tests of interpreting several novel words for the same stimulus arrays. Within-sentence phrasal cues implied different stimulus referent properties. Children's cue-using flexibility in the new Flexible Induction of Meanings [Words for Animates] test (FIM-An) was strongly correlated with an established test (Flexible Induction of Meanings [Words for Objects]; Deák, 2000). Individual children showed between-test consistency in using cues to flexibly assign words to different referent properties. There were large individual differences, as well as limited age differences, in the distribution of flexible and inflexible response patterns. The comprehensibility of specific cues, and perceptual salience of specific properties, explained much of the variance. Proportions of flexible and inflexible patterns shifted with age. Experiment 2 replicated these results in N=36 three- and four-year-olds, using a modified FIM-An with more distinctive cues.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 511 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by a Hellman fellowship and by National Science Foundation award BCS-0092027 to the first author. Thanks to the children who participated, and to Sarah Creel, Anna Holt, and Jenny Nowinski for comments on an earlier draft.

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. (1996). The role of discourse novelty in early word learning. Child Development 67, 635–45.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Trueswell, J. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(4), 527–65.Google Scholar
Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D. & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there ‘true’ task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(3), 484–502.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1989). Priorities in children's expectations about object label reference: form over color. Child Development 60, 1291–306.Google Scholar
Barlow, W. D. & Summers, I. (1979). Barlow's guide to extraterrestrials. New York: Workman.Google Scholar
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary development: all contexts are not created equal. Elementary School Journal 83(3), 177–81.Google Scholar
Behrend, D. A., Harris, L. L. & Cartwright, K. B. (1995). Morphological cues to verb meaning: verb inflections and the initial mapping of verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 22, 89–106.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Hanauer, J. B., Padowska, B. & Rosman, H. (2003). The role of selective attention in preschoolers' rule use in a novel dimensional card sort. Cognitive Development 117, 1–21.Google Scholar
Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing 11(5), 489–503.Google Scholar
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V. & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: the influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(4), 671–81.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. N. & Bowe, T. B. (1983). Text and context in early language comprehension. In Donaldson, M., Grieve, R. & Pratt, C. (eds), Early childhood development and education, 115–26. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: the relation of reading-specific multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(1), 56–63.Google Scholar
Cepeda, N. J., Kramer, A. F. & De Sather, J. (2001). Changes in executive control across the life span: examination of task-switching performance. Developmental Psychology 37(5), 715–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevalier, N. & Blaye, A. (2009). Setting goals to switch between tasks: effects of cue transparency on children's cognitive flexibility. Developmental Psychology 45(3), 782–97.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R., Halpern, E., Aviezer, O. & Goldblatt, A. (1981). The development of three spatial concepts: in, on, under. International Journal of Behavioral Development 4(4), 403–19.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters 316(2), 71–4.Google Scholar
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C. & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia 44(11), 2037–78.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O. (2000). The growth of flexible problem solving: preschool children use changing verbal cues to infer multiple word meanings. Journal of Cognition and Development 1(2), 157–91.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O. (2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities. In Kail, R. (ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 31, 271–327. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O. & Narasimham, G. (2003). Is perseveration caused by inhibition failure? Evidence from preschool children's inferences about word meanings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 86(3), 194–222.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O., Ray, S. D. & Brenneman, K. (2003). Children's perseverative appearance–reality errors are related to emerging language skills. Child Development 74(3), 944–64.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O., Ray, S. D. & Pick, A. D. (2004). Effects of age, reminders, and task difficulty on young children's rule-switching flexibility. Cognitive Development 19, 385–400.Google Scholar
DeMarie, D. (2001). A trip to the zoo: children's words and photographs. Early Childhood Research & Practice 3(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D. K. (1988). Learning names for materials: factors constraining and limiting hypotheses about word meaning. Cognitive Development 3, 15–35.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. (1981). PPVT-R Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Ellefson, M. R., Shapiro, L. R. & Chater, N. (2006). Asymmetrical switch costs in children. Cognitive Development 21(2), 108–30.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer, S. & Hesketh, L. (1993). The influence of prosodic and gestural cues on novel word acquisition by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 1013–25.Google Scholar
Friedman, O. & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition 107(3), 829–49.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K. S., Hartman, E., Pappas, A. & Keil, F. C. (1998). Beyond labeling: the role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(1), 1–158.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Heyman, G. D. (1999). Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: the effects of lexicalization on children's inferences about social categories. Psychological Science 10(6), 489–93.Google Scholar
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J. & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 31/2 –7 years old on a Stroop-like day–night test. Cognition 53, 129–53.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. C., McDonough, L. & Brown, N. B. (1998). The role of semantic context and memory in the acquisition of novel nouns. Child Development 69(5), 1330–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, S. (2004). Word learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: predictors and poor learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47(5), 1117–32.Google Scholar
Grieve, R., Hoogenraad, R. & Murray, D. (1977). On the young child's use of lexis and syntax in understanding locative instructions. Cognition 5(3), 235–50.Google Scholar
Hay, D. F. (2006). Yours and mine: toddlers' talk about possessions with familiar peers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24(1), 39–52.Google Scholar
Huxham, M., Welsh, A., Berry, A. & Templeton, S. (2006). Factors influencing primary school children's knowledge of wildlife. Journal of Biological Education 41(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
Jacques, S. & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). On the possible roots of cognitive flexibility. In Homer, B. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (eds), The development of social cognition and communication, 53–81. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. E. & Mervis, C. B. (1994). Microgenetic analysis of first steps in children's acquisition of expertise on shorebirds. Developmental Psychology 30(3), 418–35.Google Scholar
Jones, S. S., Smith, L. B. & Landau, B. (1991). Object properties and knowledge in early lexical learning. Child Development 62(3), 499–516.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W. & Gelman, S. A. (1992). On wooden pillows: multiple classification and children's category-based inductions. Child Development 63(6), 1536–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landau, B., Smith, L. & Jones, S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language 38(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Levy, B. A., Abello, B. & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly 20(3), 173–88.Google Scholar
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C. & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal 24(2), 237–70.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition 58, 221–51.Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K. & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition 73(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Saylor, M. M., Sabbagh, M. A. & Baldwin, D. A. (2002). Children use whole–part juxtaposition as a pragmatic cue to word meaning. Developmental Psychology 38(6), 993–1003.Google Scholar
Singer, M., Graesser, A. C. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language 33(4), 421–41.Google Scholar
Smith, L. & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word–referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition 106(3), 1558–68.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44(6), 1321–37.Google Scholar
Strommen, E. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Children's conceptions of forests and their inhabitants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(7), 683–98.Google Scholar
Thorndyke, P. W. (1976). The role of inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15(4), 437–46.Google Scholar
Tomkins, S. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Nature tables: stimulating children's interest in natural objects. Journal of Biological Education 41(4), 150–55.Google Scholar
Umstead, R. S. & Leonard, L. B. (1983). Children's resolution of pronominal reference in text. First Language 4, 73–84.Google Scholar
Yeung, N. & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29, 455–69.Google Scholar
Yu, C. & Ballard, D. H. (2007). A unified model of early word learning: integrating statistical and social cues. Neurocomputing 70(13–15), 2149–65.Google Scholar
Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): a method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols 1(1), 297–301.Google Scholar
Zelazo, P. D., Reznick, J. S. & Piñon, D. E. (1995). Response control and the execution of verbal rules. Developmental Psychology 31(3), 508–17.Google Scholar