Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners
Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0010-0285(03)00034-3
复制
发表时间：
2003-11-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Hansen, MB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Markman, EM;Wasow, JL;Hansen, MB
关于早期词汇学习的一个关键问题是，词汇学习的限制因素（如互斥性）是否存在并促进早期语言习得。众所周知，儿童会将一个新奇的标签映射到一个新奇的事物，而不是一个熟悉的物体。相互排斥在这种间接词汇学习中的作用的证据受到质疑，因为：（1）它主要来自2岁和3岁的孩子，（2）研究结果可能不是由儿童避免第二个标签来解释的，而是由创造词汇空白的新对象来解释的。三项研究通过只看到熟悉的物体来解决这些问题。15 - 17岁和18 - 20个月大的孩子被选来跨越词汇量的井喷。在研究1中，婴儿看到一个熟悉的物体和一个不透明的水桶作为搜索的位置。研究2将熟悉的物体交给婴儿玩耍。研究3排除了一个明显的搜索位置。总的来说，两个年龄段的婴儿都抵制第二个物体标签，并且在某些条件下，倾向于为新标签寻找更好的参照物。因此，在命名爆炸开始之前，相互排他性就已经存在了。研究结果表明，词汇的限制，使婴儿学习单词，即使在非最佳条件下，当扬声器不清楚，参照物是不可见的。结果进行了讨论，在一个替代的社会语用帐户。(C)2003 Elsevier Science（美国）。All rights reserved.
A critical question about early word learning is whether word learning constraints such as mutual exclusivity exist and foster early language acquisition. It is well established that children will map a novel label to a novel rather than a familiar object. Evidence for the role of mutual exclusivity in such indirect word learning has been questioned because: (1) it comes mostly from 2 and 3-year-olds and (2) the findings might be accounted for, not by children avoiding second labels, but by the novel object which creates a lexical gap children are motivated to fill. Three studies addressed these concerns by having only a familiar object visible. Fifteen to seventeen and 18-20-month-olds were selected to straddle the vocabulary spurt. In Study 1, babies saw a familiar object and an opaque bucket as a location to search. Study 2 handed babies the familiar object to play with. Study 3 eliminated an obvious location to search. On the whole, babies at both ages resisted second labels for objects and, with some qualifications, tended to search for a better referent for the novel label. Thus mutual exclusivity is in place before the onset of the naming explosion. The findings demonstrate that lexical constraints enable babies to learn words even under non-optimal conditions-when speakers are not clear and referents are not visible. The results are discussed in relation to an alternative social-pragmatic account. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.