Generic Language Use Reveals Domain Differences in Children's Expectations About Animal and Artifact Categories

Overview

Journal Cogn Dev

Specialty Pediatrics

Date 2013 Jan 22

PMID 23335836

Citations 2

Authors

Amanda C Brandone

Susan A Gelman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to explore domain differences in young children's expectations about the structure of animal and artifact categories. We examined 5-year-olds' and adults' use of category-referring generic noun phrases (e.g., "Birds fly") about novel animals and artifacts. The same stimuli served as both animals and artifacts; thus, stimuli were perceptually identical across domains, and domain was indicated exclusively by language. Results revealed systematic domain differences: Children and adults produced more generic utterances when items were described as animals than artifacts. Because the stimuli were novel and lacking perceptual cues to domain, these findings must be attributed to higher-order expectations about animal and artifact categories. Overall, results indicate that by age 5, children are able to make knowledge-based domain distinctions between animals and artifacts that may be rooted in beliefs about the coherence and homogeneity of categories within these domains.

Citing Articles

FN400 amplitudes reveal the differentiation of semantic inferences within natural vs. artificial domains.

Long C, Zhang M, Cui R, Chen J Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):12364.

PMID: 30120302 PMC: 6098037. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30684-3.

Artifacts and essentialism.

Gelman S Rev Philos Psychol. 2013; 4(3):449-463.

PMID: 23976903 PMC: 3747004. DOI: 10.1007/s13164-013-0142-7.

References

Gelman S, Kremer K . Understanding natural cause: children's explanations of how objects and their properties originate. Child Dev. 1991; 62(2):396-414. View

Booth A, Waxman S . Word learning is 'smart': evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers' extension of novel words. Cognition. 2002; 84(1):B11-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00015-x. View

Rakison D . Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull. 2001; 127(2):209-28. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209. View

Gelman S, Coley J, Rosengren K, Hartman E, Pappas A . Beyond labeling: the role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1998; 63(1):I-V, 1-148; discussion 149-57. View

Estes Z . Domain differences in the structure of artifactual and natural categories. Mem Cognit. 2003; 31(2):199-214. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194379. View

Gelman S, Bloom P . Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition. 2000; 76(2):91-103. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00071-8. View

Xu F, Tenenbaum J . Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychol Rev. 2007; 114(2):245-72. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245. View

Gelman S, Ware E, Kleinberg F . Effects of generic language on category content and structure. Cogn Psychol. 2010; 61(3):273-301. PMC: 2933429. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.06.001. View

Brandone A, Gelman S . Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: a window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition. 2008; 110(1):1-22. PMC: 2648303. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.005. View

10.

Brandone A, Cimpian A, Leslie S, Gelman S . Do lions have manes? For children, generics are about kinds rather than quantities. Child Dev. 2012; 83(2):423-33. PMC: 3571626. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01708.x. View

11.

Kalish C . Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Mem Cognit. 1995; 23(3):335-53. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197235. View

12.

Gelman S, Raman L . Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Dev. 2003; 74(1):308-25. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00537. View

13.

Saffran J, Aslin R, Newport E . Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science. 1996; 274(5294):1926-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. View

14.

Estes Z . Confidence and gradedness in semantic categorization: definitely somewhat artifactual, maybe absolutely natural. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005; 11(6):1041-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196734. View

15.

Gelman S, OReilly A . Children's inductive inferences within superordinate categories: the role of language and category structure. Child Dev. 1988; 59(4):876-87. View

16.

KALISH C . Natural and artifactual kinds: are children realists or relativists about categories?. Dev Psychol. 1998; 34(2):376-91. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.2.376. View

17.

Rosengren K, Gelman S, Kalish C, McCormick M . As time goes by: children's early understanding of growth in animals. Child Dev. 1991; 62(6):1302-20. View

18.

Diesendruck G, Gelman S . Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: evidence for an essentialist account of categorization. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 6(2):338-46. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212339. View

19.

Greif M, Kemler Nelson D, Keil F, Gutierrez F . What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(6):455-9. PMC: 3034738. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01727.x. View

20.

Goldin-Meadow S, Gelman S, Mylander C . Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model. Cognition. 2005; 96(2):109-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.003. View