When language is correlated with regularities in the world, does it enhance the learning of these regularities? This question lies at the core of both notions of linguistic bootstrapping in children and the Whorfian hypothesis. Support for an affirmative answer is provided in an artificial-noun-learning task in which 2-year-old children were taught to distinguish categories of solid and nonsolid things with and without supporting correlated linguistic cues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillmanD. (1996). Structural biases in concept learning: Influences from multiple functions. InMedinD.L.(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 35, pp.283–321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2.
BillmanD.KnutsonJ. (1996). Unsupervised concept learning and value systematicity: A complex whole aids learning the parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 458–475.890134510.1037//0278-7393.22.2.458
3.
BrownR. (1956). The original word game. InBrunerJ.S.GoodnowJ.J.AustinG.A.(Eds.), A study of thinking (pp.247–312). New York: Wiley.
4.
ColungaE.SmithL.B.(in press).A connectionist account of the object-substance distinction in early noun learning. Psychological Review.
5.
DickinsonD.K. (1988). Learning names for material: Factors constraining and limiting hypothesis about word meaning. Cognitive Development, 3, 15–35.10.1016/0885-2014(88)90028-7
6.
GathercoleV.C.M.CramerL.J.SomervilleS.C.JansenM. (1995). Ontological categories and function: Acquisition of new names. Cognitive Development, 10, 225–251.10.1016/0885-2014(95)90010-1
7.
GleitmanL.R.GleitmanH.LandauB.WannerE. (1988). Where learning begins: Initial representations for language learning. InNewmeyerF.J.(Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. 3. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp.150–193). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
GoldstoneR.L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 585–612.949663210.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.585
9.
GrahamS.A.WilliamsL.D.HuberJ.F. (1999). Preschoolers' and adults' reliance on object shape and object function for lexical extension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 128–151.1047939810.1006/jecp.1999.2514
10.
ImaiM.GentnerD. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.9141906
11.
LandauB. (1994). Object shape, object name, and object kind: Representation and development. InMedinD.L.(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 31, pp.253–304). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
LandauB.SmithL.B.JonesS. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299–321.10.1016/0885-2014(88)90014-7
13.
LandauB.SmithL.B.JonesS. (1998). Object perception and object naming in early development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 19–24.10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01111-X
14.
LucyJ.A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15.
MacnamaraJ. (1994). Logic and cognition. InMacnamaraJ.ReyesG.E.(Eds.), The logical foundations of cognition (Vancouver Studies in Cognitive ScienceVol. 4, pp.11–34). New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
MatsumotoY. (1985). A sort of speech act qualification in Japanese: Chotto. Journal of Asian Culture, 9, 142–159.
17.
MatsumotoY. (1986). The Japanese classifier -hon: A prototype-semantic analysis. Sophia Linguistica, 20/21, 73–81.
18.
MedinD.L.AltomM.W.EdelsonS.M.FrekoD. (1982). Correlated symptoms and simulated medical classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 37–50.6210743
19.
NakaM. (1999). The acquisition of Japanese numerical classifiers by 2–4-year-old children: The role of caretakers' linguistic inputs. Japanese Psychological Research, 41(1), 70–78.
20.
O'ReillyR.C. (2001). Generalization in interactive networks: The benefits of inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning. Neural Computation, 13, 1199–1241.11387044
21.
SamuelsonL.K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15–20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1016–1037.12428712
22.
SamuelsonL.K.SmithL.B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category structure, and syntax correspond?Cognition, 73, 1–33.10536222
23.
SojaN. (1992). Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development, 7, 29–46.
24.
SojaN.CareyS.SpelkeE. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meanings: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179–211.2049905
25.
SubrahmanyamK.LandauB.GelmanR. (1999). Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in children's learning in novel words for objects and substances. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 249–281.
26.
UchidaN.ImaiM. (1999). Heuristics in learning classifiers: The acquisition of the classifier system and its implications for the nature of lexical acquisition. Japanese Psychological Research, 41(1), 50–69.
27.
WaxmanS.R.MarkowD.B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257–302.8556847
28.
WhorfB. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J.B.Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
YamamotoK.KeilF.C. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese numerical classifiers—linkages between grammatical forms and conceptual categories. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 379–409.
30.
YoshidaH.SmithL.B. (2003). Shifting ontological boundaries: How Japanese- and English-speaking children generalize names for animals and artifacts. Developmental Science, 6, 1–34.
