Young monolingual and bilingual children's responses to violation of the Mutual Exclusivity Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mutual exclusivity principle, which states that an object category can have only one name, has been shown to be used by toddlers and preschoolaged children(Markman, 1991). Studies of the mutual exclusivity principle in bilingual children aged over 3.5 years have generally found a tendency to honor the principle within languages, but not across languages. To date, younger bilinguals'adherence to this principle has not been investigated. In the present cross-sectional study, monolingual and bilingual children aged 27 and 35 months were tested. Both monolingual and bilingual children were presented with two novel labels for the same object, a violation of the mutual exclusivity principle within a language. They were then tested on their comprehension of the two labels. Bilingual children participated in an additional task in which mutual exclusivity was violated across languages Results indicated that across both language groups, the older children honored mutual exclusivity more than the younger children. No differences were found between monolinguals and bilinguals in adherence to mutual exclusivity. In addition, bilingual children performed similarly when mutual exclusivity was violated within a language and across languages The proportion of translation equivalents in the bilingual children's vocabulary did not predict their performance on the mutual exclusivity task. These results suggest that bilingual language experience does not significantly alter adherence to the mutual exclusivity principle before the age of three years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".