Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T15:29:18.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cups and glasses: learning that boundaries are vague*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Elaine S. Andersen
Elaine S. Andersen
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The boundaries of many categories, and hence the boundaries between their names, are often vague (Lehrer 1970, Labov 1973). At the same time, the child who is just learning the denotation of a word often makes ‘mistakes’ and may over-extend words to include objects that do not belong to the adult category (e.g. Clark 1973). The present study is concerned with when children learn that boundaries are vague. It was hypothesized that children would first over-extend the use of terms such as cup and define the domain of denotation discretely on the basis of one or two perceptual factors, and only later would they learn that category boundaries are often vague because of the interdependence of physical and functional (i.e. cultural) properties. Children aged 3, 6, 9 and 12 years were asked to name and to sort twenty-five different drinking vessels; then they were asked for definitions of cup and glass and were also asked to choose the best exemplar present of each category. The results showed that children go through three stages. First, they over-extend the term cup. Next, they focus only on certain perceptual properties. Finally, they show growing awareness of functional properties and hence of the vagueness of the boundary between cups and glasses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 79 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1970). Semantics. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. JVLVB 10. 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1972). On the child's acquisition of antonyms in two semantic fields. JVLVB 11. 75O–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. & Wales, R. J. (1970). On the acquisition of some relational terms. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1971 a). Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1971 b). Types of lexical information. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds), Semantics. London: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. (1956). Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Lg 32. 195–210.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Lg 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, R. W. (eds), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 183–228.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1970). Indeterminacy in semantic description. Glossa 4. 37–109.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968 a). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 71–80.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968 b). The role of semantics in grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Palermo, D. S. (1973). More about less: a study of language comprehension. JVLVB 12. 211–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1966). Review article: André Martinet, Elements of general linguistics. FL 2. 151–86.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
Schneider, D. (1969). American kin terms and terms for kinsmen. In Tyler, S. A. (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar