Article

The Effects of Joint Reference and Mutual Exclusivity on the Application of Whole-Object Assumption in 3-Year Olds Filipino-English Bilingual Preschool Students

Author

Edna S. Miraflores,Rochelle Irene G. Lucas

Information

pp. 91~109 / 2015 Vol.9 No.1

Abstract

This study investigated the word learning constraints 3-year old pre-school students resort to in learning a new word or label. The study tested three possible constraints specifically, the Whole Object Assumption to determine if it plays a primary role in the learning of a new word/label in young children, the Mutual Exclusivity Principle and the Joint Reference Principle to determine if these override the Whole Object Assumption in word learning. Each constraint was tested through audio-visual PowerPoint slides and these were the sources of the data for this study. Through these tests, the study found that the 3-year old respondents assign a new word/label to the whole object and not to any of its parts. A new word/label, however, is assigned to a part of the object if the object is already familiar to the respondents. They also do not apparently rely on social cues like looking or gazing in their learning of a new word/label.

Keywords

References

1. Avram, L. (2002). The acquisition of vocabulary. An Introduction to Language Acquisition from a Generative Perspective. Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, Bucharest. Retrieved from: http://www.ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/avram/51.pdf [ETC]
2. Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., Bill, B., Desjardins, R. N., & Irwin, J. M. (1996). Infants' reliance on a social criterion for establishing word-object relations. Child Development, 67, 3135-3153.
3. Birch, S., Vauthier, S., & Bloom, P. (2008). Three- and four-year-olds spontaneously use others’ past performance to guide their learning, Cognition, 107,
4. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. In L. Avram, (2002). The acquisition of vocabulary. An Introduction to Language Acquisition from a Generative Perspective, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, Bucharest. Retrieved from: http://www.ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/avram/51.pdf [ETC]
5. Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G., & Moore, C. (1998). Social Cognition, joint attention and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 63, 1-179.
6. Frank, I., & Pulin-Dubois, D. (2002). Young monolingual and bilingual children’s responses to violation of the mutual exclusivity principle. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 123-146.
7. Gleason, J. B. (1989). The development of language (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
8. Go, D. I. A., & Miraflores, E. S. (2010). The Effects of Joint Reference and Mutual Exclusivity on the Application of Whole-Object Assumption in Filipino Preschoolers. Philippine ESL Journal, 4, 67-93 Retrieved from: http://www.philippine-esl-journal.com/V4_A5.pdf. [ETC]
9. Hirsh-Pasek, K. Hollich, G., & Golinkoff, R. M., (2007). Young children associate novel words with complex objects rather than salient parts. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1051-1061.
10. Mather, E., & Plunkett, K. (2010). Novel labels support 10-month-olds’ attention to novel objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 232-242.
11. Maher, E. A. (2004). Children’s modality preference for novel word learning. Retrieved from http://www.phiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/Maher%20Elizabeth.pdf?acc_numtoledo1083594203 [ETC]
12. Markman, E. M. (1987). How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In E.M.
13. Markman (1992) Constraints children place on word learnings. Cognitive Science, 14, 57-77.
14. Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Markman, E. M. (1990). Constraints children place on word learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 57-77.
16. Markman, E. M. (1992). Constraints on word learning: Speculations about their nature, origins and domain specificity. In M. R Gunnar, M. P Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition: The Minnesota symposium on child Psychology (pp. 59-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Markman, E. M. & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children’s sensitivity to constraints in word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Pysychology, 16, 1-27.
18. Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121-157.
19. Markman, E. M., Wasow, J. L., & Hansen, M. B. (2003). Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 241- 275.
20. Merriman, W. E. & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1166130 [ETC]
21. Morales, M., Mundy, P., Delgado, C. E. F., Yale, M., Messinger, D., Neal, R., & Schwartz, H.K. (2000). Responding to joint attention across the 6- through 24-month age period and early language acquisition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 283-298.
22. Owens, Jr., R. E. (2005). Language development an introduction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
23. Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Soja, N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1992). Perception, ontology and word meaning. Cognition, 45, 101-107.
25. Woodward, A. L. (1992). The role of whole object assumption in early word learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.