Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Free association? Why category development requires something more

Free association? Why category development requires something more Yoshida and Smith's article is a fascinating and forceful demonstration that language can influence on which side of an ontological boundary a novel object is categorized. Above all, the authors provide compelling data that support the notion that ontological categories are shaped by associative processes that extract regularities among language, the properties of objects, and the structures of categories. Given my own theoretical framework ( Rakison, in press ; Rakison & Poulin‐Dubois, 2001 ), it is perhaps not surprising that I am in agreement with the position that a sensitive perceptual system and domain‐general associative processes drive knowledge acquisition for different ontological kinds in the first years of life. Nonetheless there are a number of reasons why I think it is necessary to be cautious before accepting Yoshida and Smith's proposal. In particular, I will argue that it is necessary to take into account the representational foundations of ontologies formed prior to the onset of language, and it is critical to demarcate more explicitly the associative processes involved. Ontological categorization before language The studies presented by Yoshida and Smith are highly consistent with the work of Imai and Gentner (1997) and Soja, Carey and Spelke (1991) , yet http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Developmental Science Wiley

Free association? Why category development requires something more

Developmental Science , Volume 6 (1) – Feb 1, 2003

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/free-association-why-category-development-requires-something-more-gWRnp7C4La

References (16)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1363-755X
eISSN
1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/1467-7687.00247_3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Yoshida and Smith's article is a fascinating and forceful demonstration that language can influence on which side of an ontological boundary a novel object is categorized. Above all, the authors provide compelling data that support the notion that ontological categories are shaped by associative processes that extract regularities among language, the properties of objects, and the structures of categories. Given my own theoretical framework ( Rakison, in press ; Rakison & Poulin‐Dubois, 2001 ), it is perhaps not surprising that I am in agreement with the position that a sensitive perceptual system and domain‐general associative processes drive knowledge acquisition for different ontological kinds in the first years of life. Nonetheless there are a number of reasons why I think it is necessary to be cautious before accepting Yoshida and Smith's proposal. In particular, I will argue that it is necessary to take into account the representational foundations of ontologies formed prior to the onset of language, and it is critical to demarcate more explicitly the associative processes involved. Ontological categorization before language The studies presented by Yoshida and Smith are highly consistent with the work of Imai and Gentner (1997) and Soja, Carey and Spelke (1991) , yet

Journal

Developmental ScienceWiley

Published: Feb 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.