Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T12:30:09.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mothers' use of superordinate category terms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Elizabeth F. Shipley ,
Ivy F. Kuhn  and
E. Colby Madden
Elizabeth F. Shipley
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Ivy F. Kuhn
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
E. Colby Madden
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mothers' speech in an identification task was examined for ten mother–child pairs in which the child's age varied from 1; 9 to 4; 9. Stimuli were used from three domains, animals, clothes and furniture. These varied in familiarity, centrality (goodness of exemplar) and number of items. Basic-level category terms were found to be the most frequently used labels. Superordinate category terms were elicited by (a) an unfamiliar animal and (b) groups of items from the same domain. Information on category relations was provided in several ways: alternative labels, multiple labels and explicit statements of inclusion. Competencies required to learn the correct referent for category terms and differences among superordinate categories are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , October 1983 , pp. 571 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Battig, W. F. & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: a replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. JExpPsych 80. Monogr. Suppl. 3, Part 2.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. (1978). Ethnobiological classification. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. & Raven, P. H. (1974). Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blewitt, P. (1981). ‘Dog’ vs. ‘collie’: vocabulary in speech to young children. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.Google Scholar
Blewitt, P. & Connor, K. M. (1981). Young children's understanding of hierarchical organization. Paper presented to the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1979). What minds have in common is space: a perceptual mechanism for joint reference in infancy. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Developmental Psychology Section,British Psychological Society,Southampton.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., Davies, P. & Richman, B. (1971). Wordfrequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Dale, E. & O'Rourke, J. (1976). The living word vocabulary: a 43,000 word vocabulary inventory. Chicago: Dome Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, I. M. (1966). Zoological classification system of a primitive people. Science 151. 1102–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, P. M. (1976). Birds, words, and a requiem for the omniscient informant. AmEthnol 3. 446–8.Google Scholar
Hunn, E. S. (1977). Tzeltal folk zoology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katz, N., Baker, E. & Macnamara, J. (1974). What's in a name? A study of how children learn common and proper names. ChDev 45. 469–73.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1972). Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. PsychRev 79. 1–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Markman, E. M., Horton, M. S. & McLanahan, A. G. (1980). Classes and collections: principles of organization in the learning of hierarchical relations. Cognition 8. 227–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markman, E. M. & Seibert, J. (1976). Classes and collections: internal organization and resulting holistic properties. CogPsych 8. 561–77.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Mervis, C. A. (1982). Leopards are kitty-cats: object labeling by mothers for their thirteen-month-olds. ChDev 53. 267–73.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. AnnRevPsych 32. 89–115.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, C. M. & Messer, D. J. (1977). Mothers, infants and pointing: a study of gesture. In Schaffer, H. R. (ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1977). Motherese: the speech of mothers to young children. In Castellan, N. J., Pisoni, D. B. & Potts, G. R. (eds), Cognitive theory, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1980). Ostensive definition in vocabulary teaching. JChLang 7. 565–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Ninio, A. & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. JChLang 5.1–15.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. CogPsych 7. 573–605.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. CogPsych 8. 382–439.Google Scholar
Shipley, E. F. & Kuhn, I. F. (1983). A constraint on comparisons: equally detailed alternatives. JExpChPsych 35. 195–222.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B. & Rizzo, T. A. (1982). Children's understanding of the referential properties of collective and class nouns. ChDev 53. 245–57.Google Scholar
Stross, B. (1974). How Tzeltal children learn botanical terminology. In Edmonson, M. S. (ed.), Meaning in Mayan languages. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. & Lorge, I. (1952). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teacher's College.Google Scholar
Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language unabridged (1961). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.Google Scholar
White, T. G. (1982). Naming practices, typicality and underextension in child language. JExpChPsych 33. 327–46.Google Scholar