Pragmatic inference, not semantic competence, guides 3-year-olds' interpretation of unknown number words.
Pragmatic inference, not semantic competence, guides 3-year-olds' interpretation of unknown number words.
复制标题
指导 3 岁儿童解释未知数字单词的是语用推理，而不是语义能力。
DOI：
10.1037/a0029384
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
D. Barner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Neon Brooks;Jennifer L. Audet;D. Barner
在孩子们学习六个数字的具体含义之前，他们知道他们代表精确数量吗？先前的研究报告了证据相互矛盾，发现儿童期望数字在某些任务中标记精确数量，但在另一些任务中不标记（Condry＆Spelke，2008； Sarnecka＆Gelman，2004）。在本文中，我们提供的证据表明，一些儿童的明显成功是最好的解释不是通过特定于领域的语义理解数字来解释，而是通过语言将军务实的能力来解释。在实验1中，我们在受试者内设计中复制了先前研究的发现。当3岁的孩子看到一套标有一个数字（例如五个）并添加了一个物品时，他们更喜欢一个新的标签（六个），而不是旧标签（六个），就好像他们相信数字单词具有精确的含义。但是，当将2组中的1组中的1组标记（例如，为五个），并要求儿童找到相同数量（五）或新数量（六）时，他们执行的是相同的，无论是更改了原始集合还是仅重新安排了原始集合。因此，当将2个数字作为1组的替代标签提供时，孩子的行为似乎具有确切的含义，而当他们被要求确定2组中的哪个数字中的哪一组中，则没有。在实验2中，使用类似的方法对儿童进行了测试，但使用新颖的名词和对象进行了转化，而不是集合。尽管对这些单词缺乏含义，但孩子们表现出相同的结果模式，这表明他们对数字的判断可能不依赖于语义知识，即数字具有精确的含义。我们建议可以通过使用领域务实的推论来解释儿童的行为，并且不需要提出特定于域的数值知识。
Before children learn the specific meanings of numerals like six, do they know that they represent precise quantities? Previous studies have reported conflicting evidence and have found that children expect numerals to label precise quantities in some tasks but not in others (Condry & Spelke, 2008; Sarnecka & Gelman, 2004). In this article, we present evidence that some of children's apparent successes are best explained not by domain-specific semantic understanding of number but instead by language-general pragmatic abilities. In Experiment 1, we replicated the findings of the previous studies in a within-subject design. When 3-year-olds saw a set labeled with a number (e.g., five) and an item was added, they preferred a new label (six) over the old one, as though they believed that number words have precise meanings. However, when 1 of 2 sets was labeled (e.g., as five) and children were asked to find the same quantity (five) or a new quantity (six), they performed identically whether the original set was changed in quantity or merely rearranged. Thus, when 2 numerals were offered as alternative labels for 1 set, children behaved as though they had precise meanings, whereas when they were asked to determine which of 2 sets a single numeral referred to, they did not. In Experiment 2, children were tested using similar methods but with novel nouns and objects that were transformed, instead of sets. Children showed the identical pattern of results despite lacking meanings for these words, suggesting that their judgments for numerals may not have relied on semantic knowledge that numerals have precise meanings. We propose that children's behavior can be explained by the use of domain-general pragmatic inference and does not require positing domain-specific numerical knowledge.