Do Early Nouns Refer to Kinds or Distinct Shapes?: Evidence From 10-Month-Old Infants
Abstract
What is the nature of early words? Specifically, do infants expect words for objects to refer to kinds or to distinct shapes? The current study investigated this question by testing whether 10-month-olds expect internal object properties to be predicted by linguistic labels. A looking-time method was employed. Infants were familiarized with pairs of identical or different objects that made identical or different sounds. During test, before the sounds were demonstrated, paired objects were labeled with one repeated count-noun label or two distinct labels. Results showed that infants expected objects labeled with distinct labels to make different sounds and objects labeled with repeated labels to make identical sounds, regardless of the objects' appearance. These findings indicate that the 10-month-olds' expectations about internal properties of objects were driven by labeling and provide evidence that even at the beginning of word learning, infants expect distinct labels to refer to different kinds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Even infants routinely use the phonological form of words to make conceptual inferences about novel objects that share little perceptual similarity, and adults are believed to do the same.
“In fact, even infants routinely use the phonological form of words to make conceptual inferences about novel objects that share little perceptual similarity (Dewar & Xu 2009; Ferry et al. 2010; Xu 2002) and we believe that adults do the same thing.”
From The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review (2012) · cites this paper as Dewar & Xu 2009
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 85
- Authors
- Dewar, K., & Xu, F.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 252-257
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2165126084
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 11.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- word learning, count nouns, infant language acquisition, object properties, 10-month-old infants
- MeSH terms
- Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Semantics, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
