Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:41:24.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formation of internal structure in a lexical category*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Mark E. Bernstein
Mark E. Bernstein
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What does the word chair mean? How does the category of objects bearing this name differ between adults and pre-school children? And how does the knowledge of a possible function of an object affect subjects' judgements? Answers to these questions were sought by means of sorting and rank ordering tasks. Subjects were shown drawings of a variety of objects on which one could sit, and were asked to indicate which ones they would call chairs. Those objects so judged to be category members were rank ordered for degree of typicality (or ‘best example’) by a paired-comparisons procedure. Half the subjects saw drawings of the objects alone, while the others saw a person sitting on each object. The results revealed that adults consistently judged some objects to be better examples than others, and that the provision of function information affected the judgements in a characteristic way. A different, less stable typicality structure was found in the children's category. Function cues caused the children's rank order judgements to change greatly. These findings are discussed within the framework of some recent theories of lexical concept formation in young children, and in relation to recent work on the nature of internal representations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 381 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

[*]

An early version of this paper was presented at the Third Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, 1978. Many thanks to Gloria Seidlin-Bernstein, and to Kristine Strand and Nan Bernstein of the Boston University Program in Applied Psycholinguistics for their insightful comments and discussion during the data collection and analysis. Special thanks go to Paula Menyuk and Bruce Fraser for their encouragement and help. Address for correspondence: Department of Speech Communication, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712.

References

REFERENCES

Black, M. (1949). Language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1977). Introduction. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosslyn, S. (1978). Imagery and internal representations. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, R. W. (eds), New ways of analyzing variation in English, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges, fuzzy logic, and multiple meaning criteria. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap/Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulford, R. (1977). Prototypicality and the development of categorization. Paper presented at the Second Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: interrelations in acquisition and development. PsychRev 81. 267–85.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1975). The conceptual basis for naming. Paper prepared for the Conference on Language Learning and Thought in Infants,McGill University,Montreal.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. & Begg, I. (1981). Psychology of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975 a). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. JExpPsych 104. 192–233.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975 b). Cognitive reference points. CogPsych 7. 532–47.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. CogPsych 7. 573–605.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. CogPsych 8. 382–439.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Simpson, C. & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. JExpPsych:PerceptPerf 2. 491–502.Google Scholar
Saltz, E., Soller, E. & Sigel, I. (1972). The development of natural language concepts. ChDev 43. 1191–202.Google Scholar
Walkerdine, V. & Sinha, C. G. (1978). The internal triangle: language, reasoning, and the social context. In Markova, I. (ed.), The social context of language. London: Wiley.Google Scholar