Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T19:52:08.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context effects on lexical specificity in maternal and child discourse*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Joan Lucariello  and
Katherine Nelson
Joan Lucariello
Affiliation:
City University of New York Graduate Center
Katherine Nelson
Affiliation:
City University of New York Graduate Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mother–child (two-year-old) object labelling was studied in three natural discourse settings: (1) routine, caretaking; (2) free play; and (3) novel. Object labelling was found to be considerably more varied in these natural discourse settings than in experimental situations. While basic level tokens predominated in the free play context, they were significantly less prevalent in the routine and novel contexts. Additionally, subordinate level term usage was more common in the routine and novel contexts. The relation between mother and child labelling was also investigated and results indicated that context may be more important in determining level of labels than maternal modelling. Analyses of the discourse uses of non-basic level terms revealed that mothers were organizing the social-interactive context in ways that may facilitate child category formation.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 507 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, A. & Bullock, D. (1983). Anomaly and context effects in maternal labeling of category exemplars. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Detroit.Google Scholar
Anglin, J. (1977). Word, object and conceptual development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. & Bower, G. (1980). A priori of a concept's highly accessible information. Paper presented to the convention of the American Psychological Association,Montreal.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, D. & Thompson, B. (1983). Developmental trends in children's typicality judgments. Behavioral Research Methods & Instrumentation 15. 350–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blewitt, P. (1983 a). Dog versus collie: vocabulary in speech to young children. DevPsych 19. 602–9.Google Scholar
Blewitt, P. (1983 b). What determines order of acquisition of object categories? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Detroit.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? PsychRev 65. 14–21.Google Scholar
Callanan, M. (1985). How parents label objects for young children: the role of input in the acquisition of category hierarchies. ChDev 56. 508–23.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. (1977). The pragmatics of lexical specificity. JL 13, 153–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucariello, J. & Nelson, K. (1985). Slot-filler categories as memory organizers for young children. DevPsych 21, 272–82.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Crisafi, M. (1982). Order of acquisition of subordinate-, basic-, and superordinate-level categories. ChDev 53. 258–66.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
Nelson, K. (1982). The syntagmatics and paradigmatics of conceptual representation. In Kuczaj, S.. (ed.), Language development: language, thought and culture. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1983). The derivation of concepts and categories from event representations. In Scholnick, E.. (ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: challenges to Piaget's theory? Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: the acquisition of shared meaning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., Rescorla, L., Gruendel, J. & Benedict, H. (1978). Early lexicons: what do they mean? ChDev 49. 960–8.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C.Gray, W., Johnson, D. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. CogPsych 8. 382–439.Google Scholar
Shipley, E., Kuhn, I. & Madden, E. Colby (1983). Mothers' use of superordinate category terms. JChLang 10. 571–88.Google Scholar
Wales, R., Colman, M. & Pattison, P. (1983). How a thing is called – A study of mothers' and children's naming. JExpChPsych 36. 1–17.Google Scholar
White, T. (1982). Naming practices, typicality and underextension in child language. JExpChPsych 33. 324–46.Google Scholar