↓ Skip to main content

Children’s level of word knowledge predicts their exclusion of familiar objects as referents of novel words

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Children’s level of word knowledge predicts their exclusion of familiar objects as referents of novel words
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Grassmann, Cornelia Schulze, Michael Tomasello

Abstract

When children are learning a novel object label, they tend to exclude as possible referents familiar objects for which they already have a name. In the current study, we wanted to know if children would behave in this same way regardless of how well they knew the name of potential referent objects, specifically, whether they could only comprehend it or they could both comprehend and produce it. Sixty-six monolingual German-speaking 2-, 3-, and 4-year-old children participated in two experimental sessions. In one session the familiar objects were chosen such that their labels were in the children's productive vocabularies, and in the other session the familiar objects were chosen such that their labels were only in the children's receptive vocabularies. Results indicated that children at all three ages were more likely to exclude a familiar object as the potential referent of the novel word if they could comprehend and produce its name rather than comprehend its name only. Indeed, level of word knowledge as operationalized in this way was a better predictor than was age. These results are discussed in the context of current theories of word learning by exclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 8%
New Zealand 1 3%
Unknown 36 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 35%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 57%
Linguistics 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,729,657
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,599
of 29,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,005
of 264,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#205
of 558 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 558 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.