Elsevier

Cognition

Volume 38, Issue 2, February 1991, Pages 179-211
Cognition

Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90051-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Three experiments assessed the possibility, suggested by Quine (1960, 1969) among others, that the ontology underlying natural language is induced in the course of language learning, rather than constraining learning from the beginning. Specifically, we assessed whether the ontological distinction between objects and non-solid substances conditions projection of word meanings prior to the child's mastery of count/mass syntax. Experiments 1 and 2 contrasted unfamiliar objects with unfamiliar substances in a word-learning task. Two-year-old subjects' projection of the novel word to new objects respected the shape and number of the original referent. In contrast, their projection of new words for non-solid substances ignored shape and number. There were no effects of the child's knowledge of count/mass syntax, nor of the syntactic context in which the new word was presented. Experiment 3 revealed that children's natural biases in the absence of naming do not lead to the same pattern of results. We argue that these data militate against Quine's conjecture.

References (25)

  • S.A. Gelman et al.

    How two-year-old children interpret proper and common names for unfamiliar objects

    Child Development

    (1984)
  • P. Gordon

    The acquisition of syntactic categories: The case of the count/mass distinction

    (1982)
  • Cited by (392)

    • How do children with developmental language disorder extend novel nouns?

      2021, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some authors indeed found that this variable had an impact on the shape bias in preschool-aged TD children; shape was used more often with two-dimensional inanimate objects than with three-dimensional inanimate objects in a word extension task (Davidson, Rainey, Vanegas, & Hilvert, 2018). Moreover, three-dimensional objects were used in previous studies of word extension using substance names (Soja et al., 1991), whereas we used two-dimensional objects, which could have affected our results. Additional information that we should have thoroughly collected is an estimation of children’s vocabulary.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The research reported here was part of the first author's doctoral dissertation in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. We thank Molly Potter, Sandy Waxman, Ned Block, Paul Bloom, Debbie Zaitchik, and Sandeep Prasada for their helpful discussion and comments on earlier drafts. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and criticisms. We appreciate the assistance of Laura Kotovsky, Jim Melton, Nancy Turner, Jean Piper, and Thomas Soja in the testing of subjects and the data analysis.

    View full text