JAN. 15, 1998--When asked to identify the `comb' within a group of imposter items, two-year-olds typically will select a comb-shaped object--whether or not it has teeth for combing a doll's hair--because very young children learn new words based on shapes, not functions, a University of Delaware researcher reports in the Journal of Memory and Language, mailed today.
For adults, however, a comb is only a comb if it works, reports Barbara Landau, a professor of psychology and director of UD's Language and Cognition Laboratory. "In naming objects, adults rely strongly on both shape and functional properties," Landau explains. "But for young children, a comb-shaped piece of writing paper is more likely to be called a comb than a toy rake or a plastic fork."
What does all this mean for parents eager to help children learn new words? "Our findings tell parents that kids are really prepared to learn language," says Landau, lead author of the journal article, along with Linda Smith and Susan Jones of Indiana University. "Between the ages of 1.5 and 3 years, children's growth is astronomical. We don't need to frantically flash cards at our toddlers--they are biologically driven and preprogrammed with this shape-bias for object naming."
Landau first coined the term "shape-bias" in the late 1980s, when she demonstrated that toddlers confronted with nonsensical toys will quickly extend their recognition of a "rif" or a "dax" to include similarly shaped objects--regardless of their color, texture or size. Since then, she has shown that the shape-bias pattern begins when children are two years old and grows stronger with age.
Her latest study takes the shape-bias theory one step further--by investigating how an object's function influences naming by children and adults. Landau's research team studied a total of 260 participants from Irvine, Ca., Bloomington, Ind., and Newark, Del.--including 72 children between the ages of two and five.
As part of three separate experiments, the subjects were shown various sets of objects featuring either a common shape or function. Children were confronted, for example, with object groups such as a "comb set," which included an ordinary blue plastic comb--along with several non-functional but comb-shaped objects made of clay, packaging material, foam rubber and writing paper. At the same time, they were introduced to a plastic fork, a toy rake, a spaghetti spoon with comb-like teeth, and potato mashers with prongs--objects that could be used to comb a doll's hair.
After presenting the items and explaining their functions, the researchers began asking questions. In one case, for instance, children were told that "Barbie just woke up and needs to fix her hair." When a real comb couldn't be found, Landau reports, children often began gamely trying to comb the doll's hair with a toy rake or a fork. Yet, when the researchers picked up individual objects and asked, "Is this a comb?", children strongly favored the comb-shaped objects.
In conclusion, the researchers wrote that "although object function is important in naming for adults, it is not for young children." They cautioned, however, that "shape, function, and name are most likely intertwined in a more complex manner for many real objects." The findings, they noted, "may provide a real challenge for psychologists as well as young learners."
Journal
Journal of Memory and Language