Relevance and the Role of Labels in Categorization.

Language has been shown to influence the ability to form categories. Nevertheless, in most prior work, the effects of language could have been bolstered by the fact that linguistic labels were introduced by the experimenter prior to the categorization task in ways that could have highlighted their relevance for the task. Here, we compared the potency of labels to that of other non-linguistic cues on how people categorized novel, perceptually ambiguous natural kinds (e.g., flowers or birds). Importantly, we varied whether these cues were explicitly presented as relevant to the categorization task. In Experiment 1, we compared labels, numbers, and symbols: One group of participants was told to pay attention to these cues because they would be helpful (Relevant condition), a second group was told that the cues were irrelevant and should be ignored (Irrelevant condition), and a third group was told nothing about the cues (Neutral condition). Even though task relevance affected overall reliance on cues during categorization, participants were more likely to use labels to determine category boundaries, compared to numbers or symbols. In Experiments 2 and 3, we replicated and fine-tuned the advantage of labels in more stringent categorization tasks. These results offer novel evidence for the position that labels offer unique indications of category membership, compared to non-linguistic cues.

Pragmatics and spatial language: The acquisition of front and back.

Across languages, children produce locative back earlier and more frequently than front, but the reasons for this asymmetry are unclear. On a semantic misanalysis explanation, early meanings for front and back are nonadult (nongeometric), and rely on notions of visibility and occlusion respectively. On an alternative, pragmatic inference explanation, visibility and occlusion are simply pragmatic aspects of the meaning of front and back; the profile of back can be explained by the fact that occlusion is more noteworthy compared with visibility. We used cross-linguistic data to test these two hypotheses. In Experiment 1, we examined the production and comprehension of front/back by 3- and 4-year-old children and adults speaking two different languages (English and Greek). Children, unlike adults, used back more frequently than front in both languages; however, no such asymmetry surfaced in the comprehension of the two prepositions. In Experiment 2, both adults and children from the same language groups showed the front/back asymmetry when describing a more variable battery of spatial stimuli. Our results support the pragmatic inference hypothesis. We conclude that the emergence of spatial terms does not solely index semantic development but may be linked to pragmatic factors that also shape adults' production of spatial language cross-linguistically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The influence of labels and facts on children's and adults' categorization.

Language has been assumed to influence categorization for both adults and children but the precise role and potency of linguistic labels in category formation remains open. Here we explore how linguistic labels help fit objects into categories when relevant perceptual information is either ambiguous or inconsistent with the labels. We also ask how the effects of labels compare to those of other types of information such as facts. We presented 4-year-old children and adults with tasks in which they had to categorize a perceptually ambiguous natural-kind stimulus with one of two equidistant standards (Exp. 1 and 2) or group an ambiguous natural-kind stimulus into a category with a perceptually dissimilar standard (Exp. 3). Participants had access to labels (e.g., "This one is a lorp/pim"), observable facts (e.g., "This one has a long/short beak"), or unobservable facts (e.g., "This one drinks water/milk") that grouped the ambiguous stimulus with one of the standards. Both children and adults followed label- and fact-driven category boundaries for perceptually ambiguous stimuli (Exp. 1 and 2), and continued to do so even when the labels or facts pointed to perceptually incongruent categories (Exp. 3). These findings suggest a strong causal role for both labels and facts in categorization and have implications about theories of how categorization develops in children.

What does children's spatial language reveal about spatial concepts? Evidence from the use of containment expressions.

Children's overextensions of spatial language are often taken to reveal spatial biases. However, it is unclear whether extension patterns should be attributed to children's overly general spatial concepts or to a narrower notion of conceptual similarity allowing metaphor-like extensions. We describe a previously unnoticed extension of spatial expressions and use a novel method to determine its origins. English- and Greek-speaking 4- and 5-year-olds used containment expressions (e.g., English into, Greek mesa) for events where an object moved into another object but extended such expressions to events where the object moved behind or under another object. The pattern emerged in adult speakers of both languages and also in speakers of 10 additional languages. We conclude that learners do not have an overly general concept of Containment. Nevertheless, children (and adults) perceive similarities across Containment and other types of spatial scenes, even when these similarities are obscured by the conventional forms of the language.