Cognitive Science 36 (7):1157-1177 (2012)

Abstract
What mechanism implements the mutual exclusivity bias to map novel labels to objects without names? Prominent theoretical accounts of mutual exclusivity (e.g., Markman, 1989, 1990) propose that infants are guided by their knowledge of object names. However, the mutual exclusivity constraint could be implemented via monitoring of object novelty (see Merriman, Marazita, & Jarvis, 1995). We sought to discriminate between these contrasting explanations across two preferential looking experiments with 22-month-olds. In Experiment 1, infants viewed three objects: one name-known, two name-unknown. Of the two name-unknown objects, one was novel, and the other had been previously familiarized. The infants responded to hearing a novel label by increasing attention only to the novel, name-unknown object. In a second experiment in which the name-known object was absent, a novel label increased infants’ attention to a novel object beyond baseline preference for novelty. The experiments provide clear evidence for a novelty-based mechanism. However, differences in the time course of disambiguation across experiments suggest that novelty processing may be influenced by contextual factors
Keywords Word learning  Habituation  Mutual exclusivity  Novelty preference  Infancy  Language development
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01239.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Habituation: A Dual-Process Theory.Philip M. Groves & Richard F. Thompson - 1970 - Psychological Review 77 (5):419-450.
Constraints Children Place on Word Meanings.Ellen M. Markman - 1990 - Cognitive Science 14 (1):57-77.
Interference and Forgetting.Benton J. Underwood - 1957 - Psychological Review 64 (1):49-60.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Don't Preverbal Infants Map Words Onto Referents?Lakshmi J. Gogate - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1106-1107.
Before the `Third Element': Understanding Attention to Self.Vasudevi Reddy - 2005 - In Naomi Eilan, Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Johannes Roessler (eds.), Joint Attention: Communication and Other Minds. Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press. pp. 85--109.
How Infants Learn About the Visual World.Scott P. Johnson - 2010 - Cognitive Science 34 (7):1158-1184.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-03-22

Total views
26 ( #438,906 of 2,506,174 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,984 of 2,506,174 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes