Use Of Mutual Exclusivity Research Articles

Use of Mutual Exclusivity and its Relationship to Language Ability in Toddlers with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

To efficiently learn new words, children use constraints such as mutual exclusivity (ME) to narrow the search for potential referents. The current study investigated the use of ME in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and neurotypical (NT) peers matched on nonverbal cognition. Thirty-two toddlers with ASD and 26 NT toddlers participated in a looking-while-listening task. Images of novel and familiar objects were presented along with a novel or familiar label. Overall, toddlers with ASD showed less efficient looking toward a novel referent when a novel label was presented compared to NT toddlers, controlling for age and familiar word knowledge. However, toddlers with ASD and higher language ability demonstrated more robust use of ME than those with lower language ability.

Investigating the relationship between fast mapping, retention, and generalisation of words in children with autism spectrum disorder and typical development

While many studies have investigated how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) impacts how children identify the meanings of new words, this task alone does not constitute learning. Here we investigate fast (referent selection) and slow (retention, generalisation) word learning processes as an integrated system and explore relationships between these mechanisms in ASD and typical development. In Study 1, children with ASD and typically developing (TD) children matched on receptive vocabulary utilised mutual exclusivity to identify referents of unfamiliar words, but showed substantially reduced accuracy on delayed retention and generalisation trials. Thus, Study 2 investigated whether re-directing children’s attention to target objects following referent selection would enhance delayed retention. Participants received either social feedback (target objects were labelled and highlighted via social cues) or non-social feedback (target objects were labelled and highlighted via a flashing light). In both conditions, children with ASD were less accurate in their use of mutual exclusivity to fast-map novel words than TD children. However, children with ASD who received social feedback responded more accurately on delayed retention and generalisation trials than TD controls, and children with ASD who received non-social feedback or no feedback (in Study 1). Our findings imply that fundamental word learning mechanisms, and the relationships between them, are not qualitatively different in ASD. We argue that ASD may affect the efficiency of these mechanisms by disrupting children’s intake of linguistic input in natural environments, but difficulties may be mitigated by presenting visual and auditory stimuli in a way that appeals to the population’s strengths.

The development of fast-mapping and novel word retention strategies in monolingual and bilingual infants.

The mutual exclusivity (ME) assumption is proposed to facilitate early word learning by guiding infants to map novel words to novel referents. This study assessed the emergence and use of ME to both disambiguate and retain the meanings of novel words across development in 18-month-old monolingual and bilingual children (Experiment 1; N = 58), and in a sub-group of these children again at 24 months of age (Experiment 2: N = 32). Both monolinguals and bilinguals employed ME to select the referent of a novel label to a similar extent at 18 and 24 months. At 18 months, there were also no differences in novel word retention between the two language-background groups. However, at 24 months, only monolinguals showed the ability to retain these label-object mappings. These findings indicate that the development of the ME assumption as a reliable word-learning strategy is shaped by children's individual language exposure and experience with language use.

Second label learning in bilingual and monolingual infants.

Mutual exclusivity is the assumption that each object has only one category label. Prior research suggests that bilingual infants, unlike monolingual infants, fail to adhere to this assumption to guide word learning. Yet previous work has not addressed whether bilingual infants systematically interpret a novel word for a familiar object (i.e. an object with a known category label) as a second category label. We addressed this question by exploring bilingual and monolingual infants' use of mutual exclusivity in a task in which they heard a novel label for a familiar object with a salient color (e.g. an aqua-colored dog). They were subsequently tested with two trials that probed whether they interpreted the word as a second category label for the object (e.g. another word meaning dog) or as a label for one of the object's salient properties, namely its color (e.g. a word meaning aqua). Bilingual infants failed to adhere to mutual exclusivity and interpreted the novel word systematically as a second object category label for the familiar object. In contrast, consistent with their use of mutual exclusivity, monolingual infants rejected the novel word as a second category label, and instead showed some evidence of interpreting it as a property (color) term for the familiar object. The findings suggest that both bilingual and monolingual infants are systematic in their interpretation of a novel label for a familiar object, but that they show different interpretations of that label. We thus argue that theoretical accounts of early word learning must consider the crucial role of linguistic experience.

Flexible Use of Mutual Exclusivity in Word Learning

ABSTRACTFrom an early age, children apply the mutual exclusivity (ME) assumption, demonstrating preference for one-to-one mappings between words and their referents. However, for the acquisition of referentially overlapping terms, ME use must be suspended. We test whether contextual cues to intended meaning, in the form of presence of a speaker, may be critical for flexible ME application. Four- to five-year-old children were tested on two word learning tasks requiring flexible use of ME, respectively. In Experiment 1, children saw video recordings of the speakers introducing the novel labels. All children successfully applied ME and succeeded in accepting lexical overlap. In Experiment 2, with audio recordings of speakers only, children were unsuccessful at accepting lexical overlap. Thus, flexible use of ME relies on a developing ability to utilise the contextual information present in communicative interactions.

A Cypriot Greek Adaptation of the CDI: Early Production of Translation Equivalents in a Bi-(dia)lectal Context

The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) has been widely used to study children’s word production in both monolingual and bilingual contexts, in typical and atypical populations, and for the study of different aspects of language development, such as the use of mutual exclusivity. In this study, an adaptation of the CDI in Cypriot Greek is used to collect production data for post-vocabulary spurt children growing up in a bilectal community, where two different varieties of a language are used. Parents report that their children use translation equivalents for a single concept, and these increase as their total word production increases. Also girls seem to produce more translation equivalents than boys overall. This suggests that lexical development in bilectal communities might be more similar to bilingual rather than monolingual development, and that mutual exclusivity does not constrain word usage in such populations even during early word production.

The effects of linguistic experience on the flexible use of mutual exclusivity in word learning

Mutual Exclusivity (ME) is a prominent constraint in language acquisition, which guides children to establish one-to-one mappings between words and referents. But how does unfolding experience of multiple-to-one word-meaning mappings in bilingual children's environment affect their understanding of when to use ME and when to accept lexical overlap? Three-to-five-year-old monolingual and simultaneous bilingual children completed two pragmatically distinct tasks, where successful word learning relied on either the default use of ME or the ability to accept overlapping labels. All children could flexibly use ME by following the social-pragmatic directions available in each task. However, linguistic experience shaped the development of ME use, whereby older monolinguals showed a greater reliance on the one-to-one mapping assumption, but older bilinguals showed a greater ability to accept lexical overlap. We suggest that flexible use of ME is thus shaped by pragmatic information present in each communicative interaction and children's individual linguistic experience.

New Tool, New Function? Toddlers' Use of Mutual Exclusivity When Mapping Information to Objects

Prior research has suggested that 24-month-old toddlers will rapidly map the function of a novel object but that, unlike preschoolers and adults, they will use the tool for other purposes as well. Here, this nonexclusive pattern of object use was explored. Because it has been unclear whether a mature “one tool, one function” bias in assigning object functions is rooted in deployment of general learning principles or artifact-specific thinking, Study 1 explored 24-month-olds' exploitation of social-pragmatic cues when mapping labels, facts, and functions to novel objects. Results demonstrated that toddlers readily used a principle of mutual exclusivity to constrain assignments of labels and facts but not functions. This performance was corroborated in Study 2. It appears that 24-month-olds have a developing understanding that artifacts have specialized functions but that mutual exclusivity does not guide this development.

Children's use of mutual exclusivity to learn labels for parts of objects.

When teaching children part terms, adults frequently outline the relevant part rather than simply point. This pragmatic information very likely helps children interpret the label correctly. But the importance of gestures may not negate the need for default lexical biases such as the whole object assumption and mutual exclusivity. On this view, children initially assume that a novel label refers to a whole object. If the label for the object is familiar, mutual exclusivity blocks this assumption and frees children to look for a part referent. In this study, the authors taught children part terms by outlining a novel part of a real object. We made mutual exclusivity available by showing children familiar whole objects with novel parts and unavailable by showing unfamiliar whole objects with novel parts. During test, the object was oriented with the part facing away from the child to distinguish pointing to the object from pointing to the part. Both 2-year-olds and 3-year-olds learned more part labels when mutual exclusivity was available. Thus, mutual exclusivity is indispensable even when part labeling is accompanied by naturalistic communicative gestures.

Optimistic synchronization-based state-space reduction

Reductions that aggregate fine-grained transitions into coarser transitions can significantly reduce the cost of automated verification, by reducing the size of the state space. We propose a reduction that can exploit common synchronization disciplines, such as the use of mutual exclusion for accesses to shared data structures. Exploiting them using traditional reduction theorems requires checking that the discipline is followed in the original (i.e., unreduced) system. That check can be prohibitively expensive. This paper presents a reduction that instead requires checking whether the discipline is followed in the reduced system. This check may be much cheaper, because the reachable state space is smaller.

Monolingual and bilingual children’s use of mutual exclusivity in the naming of whole objects

In two experiments, the use of mutual exclusivity in the naming of whole objects was examined in monolingual and bilingual 3- and 6-year-olds. Once an object has a known name, then via principles of mutual exclusivity it is often assumed that a new name given to the object must refer to some part, substance, or other property of the object. However, because bilingual children must suspend mutual exclusivity assumptions between languages, they may be more willing to accept two names for an object within a language. In the current research, the use of mutual exclusivity in the naming of whole objects was found across monolingual and bilingual children, although older bilingual children were significantly less inclined to use mutual exclusivity than were older monolingual children. These results are discussed in terms of differences in monolingual and bilingual children’s word learning.

Mutual exclusivity and taxonomic bias in combination lead preschoolers' word learning.

This study investigated preschoolers' use of two word-learning tendencies in combination. 22 Japanese preschoolers were tested on a task with three forced choices that demanded use of mutual exclusivity and taxonomic bias in the single trials. When presented an object whose label they had learned, an object from the same category as the learned object, and an object from another category, the children chose the third object, suggesting that they use the two constraints in combination. This tendency is discussed with respect to its specific application to word learning.

共同注意手がかりと場所知識手がかりが語の意味の推測における相互排他性利用において果たす役割

語彙獲得の初期にある幼児はごく普通の環境の中で, 名称を知らない多くの未知物に取り囲まれていると言える。もし相互排他性 (Markman, 1989) が語彙獲得において役立つのであれば, 未知物が1個よりも多くある環境でも役立つことが示される必要がある。本研究では, 4歳児58人を被験児とし, 1個の既知物と3個の未知物の計4個を提示し, 子どもたちが環境から与えられる手がかり (共同注意手がかり・場所知識手がかり) を使用し, 同時的に相互排他性をも適用して, 最終的に適切に特定の未知物に新奇な名称を結びつけられるかを調べた。その結果, 4歳児では, 適切な共同注意手がかりさえ与えられれば, 語の意味を推測するために考慮すべき事物の範囲を正しく特定できること, 同時的に相互排他性をも適用し, 最終的に新しい語を適切な事物に関係づけられることがわかった。

Effects of knowledge about cross‐language equivalents on children's use of mutual exclusivity in interpreting novel labels

Young children seem to assume that words pick out mutually exclusive object categories. This assumption of mutual exclusivity can be useful in word learning, but it is fallible. This study examined the effects of knowledge about cross‐language equivalents on children's use of mutual exclusivity in interpreting a novel label coming from a foreign language and in interpreting a novel label within their first language. It was found that 4‐year‐olds with such knowledge suspended the assumption of mutual exclusivity in interpreting a novel label coming from a foreign language. Furthermore, they were willing to accept multiple labels for an object even within a language, as long as the context suggested that they should do so. In contrast, 3‐year‐olds did not seem to make use of such knowledge in either case. Thus, it appeared that 4‐year‐olds could make use of knowledge about language to fine tune the use of mutual exclusivity, but that this seemed to be difficult for 3‐year‐olds.

Sixteen- and 24-month-olds' use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second-label learning.

The significance of the mutual exclusivity assumption for early word learning has been questioned on 2 accounts: (a) Children learn second labels for objects, which violates the assumption, and (b) evidence documenting use of mutual comes mostly from older children. This article addresses both concerns. Use of mutual exclusivity predicts not that learning second labels is impossible but that it is harder than learning first labels. To test this, very young children were taught novel labels for objects they either could or could not already name

Sixteen- and 24-month-olds' use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second-label learning.

Sixteen- and 24-month-olds' use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second-label learning.

Children's Use of Mutual Exclusivity in Interpreting Novel Labels : Effects of Explantations about Unfamiliar Objects.

Children's Use of Mutual Exclusivity in Interpreting Novel Labels : Effects of Explantations about Unfamiliar Objects.

外国語ラベルに対する幼児の解釈方略

According to Markman and Wachtel (1988), children assume that words stand for mutually exclusive object categories, and so each object must have only one category label. This study examined whether children suspended their use of this assumption and interpreted a given novel label as referring to a familiar object; that is, an object whose name they already knew in their mother tongue (Japanese), when they were informed that the label came from a foreign language (English). The result showed that five-year-olds accepted the novel English label for a familiar object, while the three-year-olds and four-year-olds were not willing to accept it. To explain such result, the following hypotheses were considered. Children younger than 5 used mutual exclusivity to interpret a novel English label:(1) because the limitation of their capacity (Case, 1972) did not allow them to suspend the use of mutual exclusivity effectively, even if they knew English;(2) simply because only a few of them knew English. As a result, four-year-olds who knew English were found to suspend their use of mutual exclusivity when interpreting English labels. The second hypothesis was thus supported.

Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words

For children to acquire vocabulary as rapidly as they do, they must be able to eliminate many potential meanings of words. One way children may do this is to assume category terms are mutually exclusive. Thus, if a child already knows a label for an object, a new label for that object should be rejected. Six studies with 3-year-olds tested this hypothesis. Study 1 demonstrated that children reject a second label for an object, treating it, instead, as a label for a novel object. In the remaining studies, this simple novel label-novel object strategy was precluded. If the only object present is familiar, children cannot map a novel term to a novel object. Instead they must analyze the object for some other attribute to label. In Studies 2–6, children were taught either a new part term, e.g., trachea, or a new substance term, e.g., pewter, by showing them an object and saying, “This is a trachea” or (“It is pewter”). For unfamiliar objects, children tended to interpret the term as a label for the object itself. For familiar objects, they tended instead to interpret it as a part or substance term. Thus, mutual exclusivity motivates children to learn terms for attributes, substances, and parts as well as for objects themselves.