Abstract not found

Adults conceptualize the world in terms of enduring physical objects...

Fluent speech contains no known acoustic analog of the blank spaces between printed words. Early research presumed that word learning is driven primarily by exposure to isolated words. In the last decade there has been a shift to the view that exposure to isolated words is unreliable and plays little if any role in early word learning. This study revisits the role of isolated words. The results show (a) that isolated words are a reliable feature of speech to infants, (b) that they include a variety of word types, many of which are repeated in close temporal proximity, (c) that about three fourths of the words infants produce are words that mothers speak in isolation, and (d) that the frequency with which a child hears a word in isolation predicts whether that word will be learned better than the child's total frequency of exposure to that word. Thus, exposure to isolated words may significantly facilitate vocabulary development at its earliest stages.

In the novel noun generalization task, 2 1/2-year-old children display generalized expectations about how solid and nonsolid things are named, extending names for never-before-encountered solids by shape and for never-before-encountered nonsolids by material.This distinction between solids and nonsolids has been interpreted in terms of an ontological distinction between objects and substances.Nine simulations and behavioral experiments tested the hypothesis that these expectations arise from the correlations characterizing early learned noun categories.In the simulation studies, connectionist networks were trained on noun vocabularies modeled after those of children.These networks formed generalized expectations about solids and nonsolids that match children’s performances in the novel noun generalization task in the very different languages of English and Japanese.The simulations also generate new predictions supported by new experiments with children.Implications are discussed in terms of children’s development of distinctions between kinds of categories and in terms of the nature of this knowledge. Concepts are hypothetical constructs, theoretical devices hypothesized to explain data, what people do, and what people say. The question of whether a particular theory can explain children’s concepts is therefore semantically strange because strictly speaking this question asks about an explanation of an explanation.We begin with this reminder because the goal of the research reported here is to understand the role of associative processes in children’s systematic attention to the shape of solid things and to the material of nonsolid things in the task of forming new lexical categories. These attentional biases have been interpreted in terms of children’s concepts about the ontological kinds of object and substance

Abstract not found

Where does grammar come from? How does it develop in children? Developmental psycholinguists who set out to answer these questions quickly find themselves impaled upon the horns of a dilemma, caught up in a modern variant of the ancient war between empiricists and nativists. Indeed, some of the fiercest battles in this war have been waged in the field of child language. Many reasonable individuals in this field have argued for a middle ground, but such a compromise has proven elusive thus far, in part because the middle ground is difficult to define. So let us begin with some definitions. The core of this debate is about epistemology, a branch of philosophy that we can define as “The study of knowledge, its form and source, and the process by which it comes to be. ” Within this framework, empiricism can be defined as “The belief that knowledge originates in the environment and comes into the mind/brain through the

The term “aphasia ” refers to acute or chronic impairment of language, an acquired condition that is most often associated with damage to the left side of the brain, usually due to trauma or stroke. We have known about the link between left-hemisphere damage and language loss for more than a century (Goodglass, 1993). For almost as long, we have also known that the lesion/symptom correlations observed in adults do not appear to hold for very young children (Basser, 1962; Lenneberg, 1967). In fact, in the absence of other complications, infants with congenital damage to one side of the brain (left or right) usually go on to acquire language abilities that are well within the normal range (Eisele & Aram, 1995; Feldman, Holland, & Janosky, 1992; Vargha-Khadem, Isaacs, & Muter,

Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in early lexical and grammatical development are reported for 1001 English-speaking children and 386 Italian-speaking children between 1;6 and 2;6. Parents completed the English or Italian versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences, a parent report instrument that provides information about vocabulary size, vocabulary composition and grammatical complexity across this age range. The onset and subsequent growth of nouns, predicates, function words and social terms proved to be quite similar in both languages. No support was found for the prediction that verbs would emerge earlier in Italian, although Italians did produce a higher proportion of social terms, and there were small but intriguing differences in the shape of the growth curve for grammatical function words. A strikingly similar nonlinear relationship between grammatical complexity and vocabulary size was observed in both languages, and examination of the order in which function words are acquired also yielded more similarities than differences. However, a comparison of the longest sentences reported for a subset of children demonstrates large cross-linguistic differences in the

Abstract not found

The present studies investigate infants reliance on object kind information in solving the problem of object individuation. Two experiments explored whether adults, 10- and 12month -old infants could use their knowledge of ducks and cars to individuate an ambiguous array consisting of a toy duck perched on a toy car into two objects. A third experiment investigated whether 10-month-old infants could use their knowledge of cups and shoes to individuate an array consisting of a cup perched on a shoe into two objects. Ten-month-old infants failed to use object kind information alone to resolve the ambiguity with both pairs of objects. In contrast, infants this age succeeded in using spatiotemporal information to segment the array into two objects, i.e. they succeeded if shown that the duck moved independently relative to the car, or the cup relative to the shoe. Twelve-month-old infants, as well as adults, succeeded at object individuation on the basis of object kind information alone.