Mutual exclusivity (ME) refers to the assumption that there are one-to-one relations between linguistic forms and their meanings. It is used as a word-learning strategy whereby children tend to map novel labels to unfamiliar rather than familiar referents. Previous research has indicated a relation between ME and vocabulary development, which could either be due to children’s developing knowledge of the labels for familiar objects, or to enhanced general word-learning skills. In this study, ME was related to receptive vocabulary for 17- to 19-month-old children in a novel paradigm where children’s familiarity with the objects and labels was controlled. It was found that infants with larger receptive vocabularies employed ME to a greater extent than infants with a smaller vocabulary size. The results indicate that ME use is more reliable in infants with larger receptive vocabulary size, and, critically, that ME gradually consolidates as an abstract word-learning strategy as infants’ linguistic experience increases.
BaldwinD. A.MosesL. J. (2001). Links between social understanding and early word learning: Challenges to current accounts. Social Development, 10, 309–329.
2.
BionR. A. H.BorovskyA.FernaldA. (2013). Fast mapping, slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word-object mappings in relation to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30 months. Cognition, 126, 39–53.
3.
Byers-HeinleinK.FennellC. T.WerkerJ. F. (2013). The development of associative word learning in monolingual and bilingual infants. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 198–205.
4.
Byers-HeinleinK.WerkerJ. F. (2009). Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: Infants’ language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science, 12, 815–823.
5.
Byers-HeinleinK.WerkerJ. F. (2013). Lexicon structure and the disambiguation of novel words: Evidence from bilingual infants. Cognition, 128, 407–416.
6.
DiesendruckG.MarksonL. (2001). Children’s avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology, 37, 630–641.
7.
FennellC. T. (2012). Object familiarity enhances infants’ use of phonetic detail in novel words. Infancy, 17, 339–353.
8.
FensonL.DaleP. S.ReznickJ. S.BatesE.ThalD.PethickS. J.. . .StilesJ. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5), i–185.
9.
GrahamS. A.Poulin-DuboisD.BakerR. K. (1998). Infants’ disambiguation of novel object words. First Language, 18, 149–164.
10.
GrassmannS.SchulzeC.TomaselloM. (2015). Children’s level of word knowledge predicts their exclusion of familiar objects as referents of novel words. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1200.
11.
HalberdaJ. (2003). The development of a word-learning strategy. Cognition, 87, B23–B34.
12.
HalberdaJ. (2006). Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports word-learning in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 310–344.
13.
HamiltonA.PlunkettK.SchaferG. (2000). Infant vocabulary development assessed with a British communicative development inventory. Journal of Child Language, 27, 689–705.
14.
HollichG. J.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. M.BrandR. J.BrownE.ChungH. L.. . . BloomL. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: An emergentist coalition model for the origins of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65, i–135.
15.
HorstJ. S.SamuelsonL. K.KuckerS. C.McMurrayB. (2011). What’s new? Children prefer novelty in referent selection. Cognition, 118, 234–244.
16.
HorstJ. S.ScottE. J.PollardJ. A. (2010). The role of competition in word learning via referent selection. Developmental Science, 13, 706–713.
17.
Houston-PriceC.CaloghirisZ.RaviglioneE. (2010). Language experience shapes the development of the mutual exclusivity bias. Infancy, 15, 125–150.
18.
Houston-PriceC.PlunkettK.DuffyH. (2006). The use of social and salience cues in early word learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 27–55.
19.
KalashnikovaM.MattockK.MonaghanP. (2014). Disambiguation of novel labels and referential facts: A developmental perspective. First Language, 34, 125–135.
20.
KuckerS. C.McMurrayB.SamuelsonL. K. (2015). Slowing down fast mapping: Redefining the dynamics of word learning. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 74–78.
21.
KuckerS. C.SamuelsonL. K. (2012). The first slow step: Differential effects of object and word-form familiarization on retention of fast-mapped words. Infancy, 17, 295–323.
22.
LiittschwagerJ. C.MarkmanE. M. (1994). Sixteen- and 24-month olds’ use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second-label learning. Developmental Psychology, 30, 955–968.
23.
MaloneS. A.KalashnikovaM.DavisE. M. (2015). Is it a name or a fact? Disambiguation of reference via exclusivity and pragmatic reasoning. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cogs.12321
24.
MarkmanE. M. (1990). Constraints children place on word meanings. Cognitive Science, 14, 57–77.
25.
MarkmanE. M.WachtelG. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157.
26.
MarkmanE. M.WasowJ. L.HansenM. B. (2003). Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 241–275.
27.
MatherE.PlunkettK. (2010). Novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to novel objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 232–242.
28.
MatherE.PlunkettK. (2011). Mutual exclusivity and phonological novelty constrain word learning at 16 months. Journal of Child Language, 38, 933–950.
29.
MatherE.PlunkettK. (2012). The role of novelty in early word learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 1157–1177.
30.
MayorJ.PlunkettK. (2011). A statistical estimate of infant and toddler vocabulary size from CDI analysis. Developmental Science, 14, 769–785.
31.
McMurrayB.HorstJ.SamuelsonL. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119, 831–877.
32.
MerrimanW. E.BowmanL. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(3–4), 1–132.
33.
MerrimanW. E.MarazitaJ. M. (1995). The effect of hearing similar-sounding words on young 2-year-olds’ disambiguation of novel reference. Developmental Psychology, 31, 973–984.
34.
MerrimanW. E.SchusterJ. M. (1991). Young children’s disambiguation of object name reference. Child Development, 62, 1288–1301.
35.
MervisC. B.BertrandJ. (1994). Acquisition of the novel name–nameless category (N3C) principle. Child Development, 65, 1646–1662.
36.
MervisC. B.GolinkoffR. M.BertrandJ. (1994). Two-year-olds readily learn multiple labels for the same basic-level category. Child Development, 65, 1163–1177.
37.
NazziT.BertonciniJ. (2003). Before and after the vocabulary spurt: Two modes of word acquisition?Developmental Science, 6, 136–142.
38.
PrudenS.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. M.HennonE. A. (2006). The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words through perceptual salience. Child Development, 77, 266–280.
39.
RegierT. (2003). Emergent constraints on word-learning: A computational perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 263–268.
40.
RoseberryS.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. M. (2014). Skype me! Socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Development, 85, 956–970.
41.
ScofieldJ.WilliamsA. (2009). Do 2-year-olds disambiguate and extend words learned from video?First Language, 29, 228–240.
42.
StagerC. L.WerkerJ. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–382.
43.
SwingleyD. (2007). Lexical exposure and word-form encoding in 1.5-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 43, 454–464.
44.
SwingleyD.AslinR. N. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition, 76, 147–166.
45.
SwingleyD.FernaldA. (2002). Recognition of words referring to present and absent objects by 24-month-olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 39–56.
46.
TarrLab, Brown University. (1996). Object Data Bank [Computer software]. Providence, RI: Author.
47.
WilkinsonK. M.RossE.DiamondA. (2003). Fast mapping of multiple words: Insights into when ‘the information provided’ does and does not equal to ‘the information perceived’. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 739–762.
