Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:38:48.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naming as a function of linguistic form-class and object categories*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

M. Michael Akiyama  and
Sharon A. Wilcox
M. Michael Akiyama*
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan-Dearborn
Sharon A. Wilcox
Affiliation:
The University of Arkansas-Fayetteville
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan–Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48128, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined whether children rely on linguistic information (i.e. mass vs. count nouns) or object category information (i.e. objects vs. substances) when they name things. A grinder test was used, in which substances (e.g. water) maintain identity through transformation but objects (e.g. a cup) do not. Thirty children aged three through six were asked if the same name could be used for the same item after transformation. The items included pairs of amorphous substances and discrete objects (e.g. water – a cup), perceptually similar discrete objects (e.g. chalk – a crayon), and food items (e.g. corn – a bean). Children accepted the same name for food, ignoring linguistic information, and for objects, relying on linguistic information. In Experiment 2, 32 children aged five through eight were asked if the same name could be used for unfamiliar hardware and food items after transformation when they were labelled by nonsense mass and count nouns. Children tended to use the same name for food, relying on perceptual information. These results are discussed in terms of the active conceptualization about names of objects in relation to object characteristics.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 419 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

We would like to thank the children, teachers and parents at the Children's Research Center and the Children's Development Center affiliated with the University of Michigan and at St Alphonsus grade school, whose co-operation was essential in conducting our research. We also would like to thank Kathy Straub and Amy David for collecting data for Experiment 1 and a pilot study to Experiment 2. Amy David conducted Experiment 2 as a student project under the supervision of the first author. Doug Behrend, Bill Croft, Susan Gelman, Peter Gordon and Marilyn Shatz made useful comments on earlier versions of our manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Akiyama, M. M. (1988). Identity as a function of names and their referents among monolinguals and bilinguals. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Brown, R. W. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Taylor, M. (1984). How two-year-old children interpret proper and common names for unfamiliar objects. Child Development 55, 1535–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: the case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition 20, 209–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1969). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Katz, N., Baker, E. & Macnamara, J. (1974). What's in a name? A study of how children learn common and proper names. Child Development 45, 469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1987). How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1975). Lexicography and the count-mass distinction. Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 314–322.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. & Wattenmaker, W. D. (1987). Category cohesiveness, theories, and cognitive archaeology. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: some preliminaries. Philosophia 5, 451–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., Sinclair, H. & Vinh, Bang (1968). Epistémologie et psychologie de l'enfant. Etudes d'epistémologie génétiques, 24. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language, and reality. Philosophical papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quince, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. (1987). Bootstrapping operations in child language. In Nelson, K. & Van Kleeck, A. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Carey, S. & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight and density. Cognition 21, 177–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, R. (1979). Some bits and pieces. In Pelletier, F. J. (ed.), Mass terms: some philosophical problems. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar