Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:57:14.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct and indirect cues to knowledge states during word learning*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2008

MEGAN M. SAYLOR  and
C. BROOKE CARROLL
MEGAN M. SAYLOR*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
C. BROOKE CARROLL
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Address for correspondence: Megan M. Saylor, Vanderbilt University, Psychology and Human Development, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated three-year-olds' sensitivity to direct and indirect cues to others' knowledge states for word learning purposes. Children were given either direct, physical cues to knowledge or indirect, verbal cues to knowledge. Preschoolers revealed a better ability to learn words from a speaker following direct, physical cues to their knowledge state. Implications for children's emerging pragmatic competence are discussed.

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 685 - 695
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

[*]

Portions of these data were used for Brooke Carroll's honors thesis at Vanderbilt. The findings were presented at the Tennessee Psychological Association Conference in Nashville, TN in October of 2004 and at the Jean Piaget Society Conference in Vancouver, BC in June of 2005. We would also like to offer our special thanks to the parents and children who participated and to Mark Sabbagh for lively discussions about the research and to Georgene Troseth for comments on the manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Birch, S. A. J. & Bloom, P. (2002). Preschoolers are sensitive to the speakers' knowledgewhen learning proper names. Child Development 73, 434–44.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2002). A new false belief test for 36-month-olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 20, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and Topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension of the given–new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. and Sag, I. A. (eds) Elements of discourse understanding, 10–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development 74, 308–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A. & Graf, P. (1988). Knowing how you know: Young children's ability to identify and remember sources of their beliefs. Child Development 59, 1366–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. A., Stock, H. & Henderson, A. M. E. (2006). Nineteen-month-olds' understanding of the conventionality of object labels versus desires. Infancy 9, 341–50.Google Scholar
Hall, D. G., Waxman, S. R. & Hurwitz, W. M. (1993). How two- and four-year-old children interpret adjectives and count nouns. Child Development 64, 1651–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F. & Loth, E. (2002). ‘Theory of Mind’, and tracking speakers intentions. Mind and Language 17, 24–36.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K. (2004). Don't believe everything you hear: Preschoolers' sensitivity to speaker intent in category induction. Child Development 75 (6), 1871–85.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (1997). Unconfounding common ground. Discourse Processes 24, 253–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B. P. H. (2001). Mutual knowledge, background knowledge, and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. A. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology 20, 120–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, D. E. (1992). Young children's theory of knowing: The development of a folk epistemology. Developmental Review 12, 410–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C., Jarrold, C., Russell, J., Lumb, A., Sapp, F. & MacCallum, F. (1995). Conflicting desire and the child's theory of mind. Cognitive Development 10, 467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, D. K. & Gopnik, A. (1991). Young children's ability to identify sources of their beliefs. Developmental Psychology 27, 390–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiffe, C., Terwogt, M. T., Koops, W., Stegge, H. & Oomen, A. (2001). Preschoolers' appreciation of uncommon desires and subsequent emotions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 19, 259–74.Google Scholar
Repacholi, B. M. & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology 33, 12–21.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A. & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development 72, 1054–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saylor, M. M. & Sabbagh, M. A. (2004). Different kinds of information affect word learning in the preschool years: The case of part-term learning. Child Development 75, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 993–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saylor, M. M. & Troseth, G. L. (2006). Preschoolers use information about speakers' desires to learn new words. Cognitive Development 21, 214–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar