Chasing the fox of word learning: Why “constraints” fail to capture it (2000)
| Venue: | Developmental Review |
| Citations: | 8 - 5 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Deák00chasingthe,
author = {Gedeon O. Deák},
title = {Chasing the fox of word learning: Why “constraints” fail to capture it},
journal = {Developmental Review},
year = {2000},
pages = {29--80}
}
Years of Citing Articles
Bookmark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OpenURL
Abstract
It is often asserted that young children’s word learning is guided by constraints or internal biases. Constraints are broadly described as ‘‘any factor that favors some possibilities over others’ ’ (Medin et al., 1990). Researchers have argued that specialized lexical constraints cause children to make some inferences about word meanings before others. An analysis shows that the concept constraint is not informative because it does not differentiate a circumscribed set of word learning behaviors. Defining constraints as innate and domain-specific does not remedy this problem. We cannot separate the effects of so-called constraints or biases from a wide range of cognitive and contextual influences on children’s inferences about novel word meanings. This conclusion is supported by a selective review of these influences. The summary highlights our need for an explanatory framework that is sufficiently rich to capture the flexibility and diversity of children’s word learning. The core of such a framework is summarized as a set of general characteristics of human word learning. These characteristics must serve as a starting point for any viable theory of word learning. Prescriptions for future development of a viable framework are suggested. © 2000 Academic Press Word learning 1 is a complex and intractable problem for which researchers have offered a seemingly simple and powerful solution. The problem is that preschoolers ’ prolific acquisition of new words (averaging a half dozen per day; Carey, 1978) seems impossible given the radical indeterminacy of word meanings. A novel word has an indefinite number of possible meanings, and it is unlikely that children regularly receive information that unambiguously specifies a single meaning. Yet children often infer new words ’ correct or Preparation of the manuscript was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Spencer
