Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.

10 October 2004

Language and Conceptual Development series

How language acquisition builds on

cognitive development
Eve V. Clark
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

When children acquire a first language, they build on build on has become more complicated. So the funda-
what they know – conceptual information that dis- mental question is, what information do children repre-
criminates and helps create categories for the objects, sent? Do their categories reflect only what their language
relations and events they experience. This provides the offers, or do they – must they – make use of other
starting point for language from the age of 12 months representations too?
on. So children first set up conceptual representations,
then add linguistic representations for talking about Finding out about language
experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual Children get their information about language from their
representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they caretakers and the adults around them. Infants are
retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies remarkably sensitive to statistical regularities they hear
that young children (and adults) rely on when they are in language, in sound patterns, grammatical inflections on
unable to draw on language suggest that they retain words, patterns for coining new words, and constructions
both types of representations for use as needed. in adult speech [3–6]. They tend to pick up on the most
frequent nouns, verbs and adjectives first, and then
At around 12–18 months of age, children embark on extend their range. In doing this, they depend on social
learning the language of their community, whether this interaction. They attend to what is in the joint focus of
turns out to be Korean, English, Hindi, French, Tagalog or attention for adult and child, to what is physically and
Finnish. Languages differ in how they represent experi- conversationally present, and hence to the language
ence, so the language children learn will affect how they directed to them as addressees. Indeed, social interaction
talk about objects and events. Some languages offer more is essential to the process of acquisition [7,8].
terms than others for particular domains. Some indicate At the same time, people can identify, sort, and remember
whether information comes directly from the observer or objects and events without using language. And the sorting
through hearsay. Some assign every noun a gender they do without language does not always match what they
(masculine, feminine or neuter), and might also assign do in response to language [9]. This suggests people must
cases to nouns to mark grammatical roles (e.g. agent, set up multiple representations of experience, represen-
location, instrument). And speakers of different languages tations based not only on representations linked to specific
learn different sets of grammatical elements that must be languages for encoding experience, but also on their
used in every utterance. cognitive development, for categorization, identification,
What do children already know when they embark on sorting and remembering [10].
language? Some researchers focus on the first year of Children’s earliest conceptual representations of
cognitive development and assume that children build on objects, relations and events provide a general under-
this to begin with, then narrow their focus to just what pinning for linguistic categories and are one source for
happens in a specific language. That is, representations of universals in language [11,12]. First, humans represent
experience are taken to be co-extensive with what is experiences gathered from perceptual input, along with
needed in their specific language. A variant on this information from inferences in context. In the first 12
position is to ignore early cognitive development and months, infants start to organize what they know about
simply assume that representations of experience are entities and events before they gain access to the
given and just need to be linked to the relevant linguistic representational properties of language. But as they
categories when the time comes. A further proposal is that start to learn particular languages, their paths diverge.
children first build on what they know before language, Languages differ subtly in how they encode experience,
and then use language as well in constructing additional because they really only evoke ideas and offer people
categories [1,2]. That is, cognition and language interact selective, schematic maps of the events talked about. That
in a cyclical fashion as children learn more. is, the grammatical and lexical options available in any
As researchers have examined acquisition across a one language do not express every detail of the conceptual
range of languages, the picture of what children know and categories available. Words draw attention to some
Corresponding author: Eve V. Clark (eclark@psych.stanford.edu). elements and leave others aside, with a different selection
available for each language. Children must work out
www.sciencedirect.com 1364-6613/$ - see front matter Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.012
 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004 473

which categories their language picks out [1]. This task smaller objects go inside containers but on supporting
continues into adulthood as children map each unfamiliar surfaces; objects are typically placed in contact with a
word and construction onto the relevant conceptual repre- target location rather than separated from it; and objects
sentations. Because languages differ, children learning and locations tend to be oriented canonically – boxes and
different languages will often map different linguistic forms cups stand with openings upwards; supporting surfaces
and structures onto the same conceptual domain of experi- are horizontal; inherently vertical objects are oriented
ence. How they talk about each domain depends on the with tops up, and objects that move autonomously move
language they hear. Some of these differences can be detected forwards [17–22]. Young children also treat target
quite early, almost as soon as children begin acquiring a locations as goals of motion rather than as sources [23].
language. This can be seen in the domain of space. Their knowledge is displayed in their general cognitive
strategies for dealing with relations in space.
Space and spatial language in acquisition Strategies for organizing space appear firmly estab-
When do infants set up a conceptual organization of space? lished in 15- to 18-month-olds, guiding their responses to
Recent studies show that they can discriminate certain requests to put an object somewhere. When asked to place
spatial distinctions at 6–7 months. For instance, 6-month- objects with spatial terms they do not yet understand,
olds readily habituate to looking at a container seen from they cope by relying on strategies like those listed in
different angles and holding different objects [13]. By 9–10 Table 1. If there is a container available, it takes priority
months, they can discriminate among more spatial over other possible locations. If there is no container
relations in preferential looking tasks. Between 9 and 11 present, children look for a supporting surface. And if
months, they habituate to containment (e.g. a small object there is a gap between the target location and the object,
in a box), and do so before they attend consistently to children close it up. They also treat any places mentioned
either support (an apple on a plate, say) or tight-fit as goals of motion, not sources or points of departure, and
(a tape in a cassette case), which they manage only at they attend to canonical orientation for objects and
17–19 months. When tested for discrimination between locations – people sit on chairs, toys go in boxes, flowers
tight-fit containment (a tape in a cassette case) versus loose in vases, boats in water, trains on rails, shoes on feet, corks
support (an apple on a plate), and for tight-fit containment in bottles, and so on [16,17]. Notice that such strategies
versus loose containment (an apple in a bowl), infants aged can only be established in act-out tasks that leave open
9–14 months discriminated both contrasts, suggesting that choices of placement for the child. Preferential looking
by that age they are sensitive to a range of conceptual spatial with its forced choice establishes discriminations among
contrasts, only some of which might be relevant to the placements [24,21], but not full comprehension. But as
language they eventually learn [14,15]. they get older, children become better at following
linguistic instructions about space, and relinquish their
Cognitive strategies organizing strategies in favour of procedures consistent
These discriminations in infants bear out earlier proposals with the meanings of words for specific relations [16,24].
about children’s non-linguistic knowledge about space
[16,17]. Consider how 15–18-month-olds deal with spatial Strategy versus word meaning
relations. In what was originally designed as a compre- How are children’s organizing strategies related to the
hension task, where an adult asked them to put a toy meanings of language-specific terms for space? Notice that
mouse in or on a box, these infants always placed the where there is coincidence between the outcome of a
mouse in the box regardless of what the adult said. And if strategy and the meaning of a word, mapping that word
the box was presented lying on its side, 1- and 2-year-olds onto the spatial relation ought to be relatively easy. Where
first turned it so its opening faced upwards. Asking there is only a partial or no match, learning how to map the
children to put the mouse on this box elicited the same word onto a conceptual spatial relation should be harder.
response: the box was turned opening upwards and the This is consistent with data for children’s acquisition of
mouse placed inside. The conclusion is that these children English in (a match for containment), on (a match for
attend to canonical orientation (the box with its opening support), and under (no match for containment or support)
upwards) and placement (the toy mouse), but they don’t
yet understand either in or on. Table 1. Spatial notions and cognitive strategies
In other tasks, where they had to copy exactly what the Early cognitive discriminations among spatial relations
experimenter did, the same children found it difficult to Containment: 6–7 months onwards
reproduce an array when the toy mouse was placed on an Tight-fit containment: 9–14 months
upside-down glass or next to an upright glass, or when the Loose-containment: 9–14 months
mouse was placed 2 cm away from the glass: children Loose support: 9–14 months
Support: 17–19 months
always placed the mouse inside the upright glass [16].
They had similar difficulties when the mouse was placed Strategies used from 15–18 months onwards to relate an object (X) to
a location
2 cm away from a block: they placed it on the block. In
Containment: if the location is a container, put X inside.
short, 1- and 2-year-olds rely first on their general Support: if the location is a supporting surface, put X on top
conceptual knowledge to respond with plausible spatial Contact: if the location is nearby, put X in contact with it
relations between objects and locations. Goal: if the location is mentioned, move X towards it
This knowledge appears to be built on infants’ early Canonical orientation: if the location is not canonically positioned,
return it to its normal orientation
experience of how objects and places are typically related:
www.sciencedirect.com
474 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004

as well as other prepositional and phrasal spatial terms in

English [25,26]. Children’s reliance on earlier cognitive (a) English (b) Finnish
strategies, then, appears to account both for early systema-
tic errors and for the initial order of acquisition for English
spatial terms.
Adults continue to draw on their initial conceptual in -lla
organization of space. Consider how you remember where on -ssa
you left the house keys or where the car is parked, how you
work out how to put a bookcase together, and myriad other
tasks where you draw on spatial information without
using language. Notice that if we assume that linguistic
encoding of space results in a basic restructuring of
children’s conceptual representations of space, then any
earlier cognitive organization should be replaced by the
organization derived from each language [27]. This would (c) Dutch (d) Spanish
mean that people’s representations of space would depend
on, and be limited to, the meanings and contrasts in each
specific language. The alternative is that when children
learn to talk about spatial relations in a specific language, op
in
they learn to attend to some distinctions and to ignore
en
others. Under this view, people retain access to cognitive
principles for categorizing, sorting and remembering [9],
and these remain available for use when linguistic
information is absent.

A parallel with speech perception? aan

At around 10–12 months, infants begin to attend
closely to phonological distinctions in the surrounding
Figure 1. Linguistic terms for three static spatial relations compared for English,
language and cease making distinctions they had mana- Finnish, Dutch and Spanish, for talking about the locations of the cup, apple and
ged at 6–8 months [28,29]. Do infants lose their earlier handle in the settings pictured [32].
discriminative ability, or merely set it aside because they
are paying more attention to the surrounding language? terminology for space. In English, static and dynamic
Evidence for the latter is that children can later acquire spatial relations are represented with prepositions (in, on,
the phonology of additional languages. If they had lost up, etc.) and locative particles (on, off, out, etc.) as well as
their ability to discriminate, this should be impossible verbs of motion (go, run, swim, leave, etc.) and location
[30]. A similar relation probably holds for conceptual (put, sit, lie, etc.). In Finnish, the same spatial relations
versus linguistic representations: we become so used to are marked instead with case-endings on the nouns for
‘thinking for speaking’ [31] that we generally ignore places. Other languages like Russian use both preposi-
conceptual information that is not needed for speaking.
tions and case endings, and still others, like Tzeltal, use
But this information remains available and can be
only verbs to express motion and location. Languages
invoked under the appropriate circumstances.
conflate information about space (direction, motion,
manner and location) in different ways into distinct lexical
Cognitive categories and linguistic forms
items; they favour different construction-types (preposi-
The mapping of spatial terms onto conceptual categories
tions versus case-endings, for example), and they dis-
differs by language. Consider the static spatial relations
tribute information about locations and objects-placed
depicted in Figure 1 [32]. Spanish maps the same
preposition, en, onto all three relations – containment, differently [33–35].
support, and attachment; English maps in onto contain- Children display their first linguistic knowledge of
ment and contrasts it with on, which is mapped to both spatial words by 18 months. Because the only spatial
support and attachment. Dutch uses three prepositions: in terms they hear come from adult speakers, their linguistic
for containment, op for support, and aan for attachment. encoding of space is necessarily shaped by the language
Finally, Finnish maps the inessive case, the suffix -ssa ‘in’, around them. Comparison of English and Korean acqui-
to containment and attachment, in contrast to the sition, for example, shows that children pick up on the
adessive suffix, -lla ‘on’, mapped to support. So although ways adults speak about space early on. English-speaking
infants start with the same cognitive representations of children produce particles like up (for motion up or down
spatial relations, they follow different paths as they learn in space), in (for objects contained in something), and on
how their own language maps onto these cognitive (for objects supported on something), whereas Korean
notions. children begin with verbs for objects in tight-fit (kkita)
The degree of fit between linguistic meanings and versus loose-fit (nehta) configurations [36,37]. Children
children’s conceptual representations is one factor in order make use of the expressions adults offer – locative
of acquisition. But languages differ more generally in their particles and prepositional phrases in English, locative
www.sciencedirect.com
 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004 475

verbs in Korean – as they begin to talk about space, even that provides a starting point for their acquisition of the
when their uses are not yet fully conventional. meanings of the spatial verbs, prepositions, particles and
Children begin mapping the terms and constructions in case-markings they hear from their caretakers.
the language around them onto their cognitive organiz-
ation of space as soon as the words become available. They Words for objects, actions, parts, properties and events
master conventional spatial expressions beginning Children follow a similar path as they map words for objects
around 18 months and, for some languages, not ending onto their conceptual categories of objects [43,44,45]. As they
until they are 8 or 9 years old. In languages like Tzeltal or acquire language, and even before that, they rely on shape
Tzotzil, where verbs alone indicate position and motion in sorting and grouping objects that are similar [46]. They
relative to a location, children do not over-extend locative might produce a word like apple first for apples, then over-
particles because there are none [38–41]. Instead, they extend it to oranges, round door-knobs, tennis balls and
produce numerous locative verbs early. In English, where other round objects. Over-extensions can indicate atten-
many verbs combine with particles to mark location or tion to properties like texture, size, sound and motion as
direction, children often favour particles alone before well, although shape dominates [7]. They also attend to
verb–particle combinations. In each case, their linguistic some aspects of function [47,48]. But where infants start
encoding of space reflects what they hear from adults. and the path they follow depends on more than just mapping
words onto pre-established categories [49]. It also depends
Coping en route to acquiring linguistic forms on the social setting and the kinds of information adults offer
When children don’t understand something, they typically as children map their words onto cognitive categories.
cope by relying on various strategies for responding. In Children also map words for actions, parts, properties
tasks where children have to place objects in space, and events initially onto pre-established conceptual
children at first simply rely on what they know about categories. As they acquire the meanings of words for
spatial relations. Then, as they learn what specific spatial actions and for objects, they follow adult usage closely.
words mean, they use those meanings in place of earlier Their early verb uses, for example, are generally appro-
coping strategies. In Korean, for example, children priate for the relevant categories of action: run for running
continue to attend to loose- versus tight-fit, because the events, eat for eating, give for giving, and so on [50]. They
meanings of certain verbs are relevant to this distinction, attend to adult uses of words for object categories, and
but in English, children need not do so. In English, also to the information adults offer about properties and
children must attend to containers versus supports in parts characteristic of specific category members [51,52]
choosing in versus on, but in Spanish, children need not do (e.g. teeth, paws, wheels and handles).
so. In Spanish, children must attend to boundaries and
goals in relation to motion, but in English they need not do Emergent categories
so [42]. Children’s coping strategies reflect their initial En route to learning a language, children sometimes
conceptual knowledge about spatial relations, knowledge momentarily mark distinctions that are not conventional

Box 1. Some emergent categories in English acquisition

Emergent categories are categories children mark that might not have linguistic expression in the ambient language (and so must be abandoned)
or that call for some conventional means of expression instead [53].

Over-extensions
Until the age of 2–2.5 yrs, children frequently over-extend words in production, typically relying on similarities in shape, and occasionally motion,
texture, size and sound:
ball – first applied to balls, then to apples, grapes, squash, bell-clapper, or anything round
tee – first applied to sticks, then to a cane, umbrella, old-fashioned razor, board of wood, and all stick-like objects
cottybars – first applied to the bars of a cot/crib, then to a large toy abacus, a toast-rack, and a building with a columned façade
mum – first applied to horses, then to a cow, calf, pig, moose, and all four-legged animals

Control versus absence of control

At around age 2 yrs, English-speaking children sometimes assign non-conventional meanings to distinct first-person pronoun forms, typically
using me or my for events where the child controls the activity and I for events where the child lacks control:
With control: My wear it Without control: I wear it
Me jump I like peas
My taked it off I no want those

Source
Young children also group events that are conventionally encoded with distinct forms or constructions. For example, in English, they might
identify a range of events as involving a source or initiator of action through their uses of from (in the examples, the child is identified by a letter,
and their age given in yrs;mths.days):
D (2;2.3 – of pieces of sandwich pushed off plate): These fall down from me. (agent, by)
D (2;11.12): Look at that knocked down tree from the wind. (natural force, by)
A (3;0): I see boats from Mommy. (possessor, belonging to)
W (3;1.15 – of a toy rabbit): See, this ear is longer from the other one. (comparison, than)

www.sciencedirect.com
476 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004

in that particular language, but are nonetheless common

Box 2. Questions for future research
in the languages of the world [53]. These are called emer-
gent categories. Children who take up such categories † According to findings on children’s ability to discriminate among
sounds, children begin to focus their attention on the sounds of the
mark distinctions that are non-conventional. They do this
specific language around them between 10–14 months, but their
in some cases for a few weeks or months before dropping or ability to make other discriminations is not lost (consider bilingual
replacing such usage. Emergent categories are a further and multilingual acquisition in childhood). Children’s conceptual
source of information about children’s prelinguistic cate- discriminations might follow a similar path. They might at first be
gorization of objects and events. able to notice all sorts of distinctions and later narrow-in on those
actually marked in the language they hear. To what extent does this
Examples of emergent categories in English are shown
parallel hold?
in Box 1. These emerge as children appear to look for the † Languages differ in their typology or structure – the meanings,
relevant elements that are grouped together by a grammatical options, and patterns used in words and constructions.
linguistic term or construction just acquired. Sometimes To what extent do these reflect cognitive distinctions already present
the requisite meaning is simply absent from the language for young children? Do children also learn to make further
distinctions from (adult) speakers of the language? Which gramma-
in question (e.g. the distinction between control and tical distinctions have a conceptual basis already in place when
absence of control over an action); at other times, the children start to learn them?
relevant meaning (e.g. the source of an action or a † In language acquisition, comprehension is generally ahead of
comparison) might be subdivided into several parts. In production. Still, researchers rarely check on whether children really
either case, children have to give up their emergent understand specific terms, or whether they are just making
reasonable pragmatic inferences about what speakers probably
category in favor of the conventional options in use in that mean. How can researchers examine these alternatives, and
speech community. Emergent categories offer further document more carefully when young children are coping versus
evidence for a common cognitive basis to most or all understanding the linguistic forms used?
languages. † Findings from cognitive development and comparative psychol-
ogy suggest that language might help establish connections for
The information young children rely on in constructing
vision, touch and sound, for example, among categories. To what
their initial conceptual categories – shape, texture, motion extent might the acquisition of a language itself account for different
and function – is also a source for their inferences about patterns and rates of cognitive and linguistic development in
the probable meanings of words for those categories. They children? To what extent might such connections be affected by
use existing conceptual information as they build up word the amount of language children hear addressed to them?
meanings and link them to other words – for objects, parts,
properties, relations and actions. But which information is
pertinent to specific word meanings again depends on the children recognize and make use of alternate perspectives
language. on objects [62–65] and on events [66]. Finally, children also
understand early on that language reflects the speaker’s
The role of language intentions about how to view objects [67]. (For further
Does language itself play a role in cognitive development? questions, see Box 2.)
To what extent do cognitive development and language
interact as children learn more language? First, some Summary
researchers have suggested that words themselves might When children start to acquire language, they build first
be regarded as invitations to form categories and to on categories that have already discriminated. The
individuate object kinds [54–56]. Words undoubtedly conceptual representations they set up in their first year
direct young children’s attention [57,58]. That in turn for objects, relations, properties and events provide a
can influence how young children organize and consoli- broad cognitive basis onto which they can map words from
date what they know about particular kinds and relations. child-directed speech. This speech draws their attention to
Second, language can influence cognitive development specific categories and properties of those categories. It
through its availability as a representational resource. also draws their attention to grammatical distinctions not
Having a word or phrase for an object, action or relation yet represented. In acquiring a language, children must
can draw attention to similarities between cognitive eventually attend to all the distinctions relevant in that
categories across domains (e.g. the notion of ‘actor’ across language. This includes the ability to take different
different types of action: driving, pushing, picking up, perspectives on the same event or the same object. But
hitting). That is, language might enable analogies that as linguistic representations capture only certain aspects
allow for greater complexity of thought [59,60]. of cognitive representations, both types of representation
Third, language offers children a way to make explicit remain crucial, not only during language acquisition, but
different perspectives on the same event. Speakers can also on other occasions when children and adults alike
present an action from the point of view of the agent need to draw on non-linguistic as well as, or instead of,
(The boy opened the door), the object-affected alone linguistic categories.
(The door opened), or the object-affected without identify-
ing the agent (The door was opened). Speakers can
also identify the same referent in a variety of ways References
(e.g. the dog, the scavenger, the spaniel, our family pet), 1 Slobin, D.I. (1985) Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making
capacity. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition (Vol. 2)
depending on the perspective chosen on each occasion [61]. (Slobin, D.I. ed.), pp. 1157–1256, Erlbaum
The extensive layering in language vocabularies might 2 Bloom, P. (2000) How Children Learn the Meanings of Words, MIT
have evolved in part for just this purpose. Very young Press
www.sciencedirect.com
 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004 477

3 Saffran, J. et al. (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. 34 Pederson, E. et al. (1998) Semantic typology and spatial conceptual-
Science 274, 1926–1928 ization. Language 74, 557–589
4 Maratsos, M.P. (2000) More overregularizations after all: new data 35 Talmy, L. (1985) Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical
and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen, & Xu. forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 3)
J. Child Lang. 27, 183–212 (Shopen, T.E. ed.), pp. 57–149, Cambridge University Press
5 Clark, E.V. (1993) The Lexicon in Acquisition, Cambridge University 36 Choi, S. and Bowerman, M. (1991) Learning to express motion events
Press in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicaliza-
6 De Villiers, J.G. (1985) Learning how to use verbs: lexical coding and tion patterns. Cognition 41, 83–121
the influence of input. J. Child Lang. 12, 587–595 37 Bowerman, M. (1996) The origins of children’s spatial semantic
7 Clark, E.V. (2003) First Language Acquisition, Cambridge University categories: cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In Rethink-
Press ing Linguistic Relativity (Gumperz, J.J. and Levinson, S.C. eds),
8 Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language, Harvard University pp. 145–176, Cambridge University Press
Press 38 Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. (2001) Shaping meanings for language
9 Malt, B.C. et al. (1999) Knowing versus naming: similarity and the universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic
linguistic categorization of artifacts. J. Mem. Lang. 40, 230–262 categories. In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development
10 Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003) Language in Mind, MIT (Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S.C. eds), pp. 475–511, Cambridge
Press University Press
11 Clark, E.V. (1983) Meanings and concepts. In Handbook of Child 39 Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. (2003) Space under construction:
Development (Vol. 3), (Flavell, J.H. and Markman, E.M. eds), language-specific categorization in first language acquisition. In
pp. 787–840, Wiley Language in Mind (Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. eds),
12 Hawkins, J.A. ed. (1988). Explaining Language Universals, Blackwell pp. 387–427, MIT Press
13 Casasola, M. et al. (2003) Six-month-old infants’ categorization of 40 Brown, P. (2001) Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN
containment spatial relations. Child Dev. 74, 679–693 in Tzeltal: is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In
14 Casasola, M. and Cohen, L. (2002) Infant categorization of contain- Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (Bowerman, M.
ment, support and tight-fit spatial relationships. Dev. Sci. 5, 247–264 and Levinson, S.C. eds), pp. 512–543, Cambridge University Press
15 McDonough, L. et al. (2003) Understanding spatial relations: flexible 41 de León, L. (2001) Finding the richest path: language and cognition in
infants, lexical adults. Cogn. Psychol. 46, 229–259 the acquisition of verticality in Tzotzil (Mayan). In Language
16 Clark, E.V. (1973) Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of Acquisition and Conceptual Development (Bowerman, M. and Levin-
word meanings. Cognition 2, 161–182 son, S.C. eds), pp. 544–565, Cambridge University Press
17 Clark, E.V. (1980) Here’s the top: nonlinguistic strategies in the
42 Slobin, D.I. (1996) Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English
acquisition of orientational terms. Child Dev. 51, 329–338
and Spanish. In Grammatical Constructions (Shibatani, M.S. and
18 Ghent, L. (1961) Form and its orientation: a child’s-eye view. Am.
Thompson, S.A. eds), pp. 195–220, Clarendon Press
J. Psychol. 74, 177–190
43 Baldwin, D.A. (1989) Priorities in children’s expectations about object-
19 Rock, I. (1973) Form and Orientation, Academic Press
label reference: form over color. Child Dev. 60, 1291–1306
20 Kuczaj, S.A., II. and Maratsos, M.P. (1975) On the acquisition of front,
44 Landau, B. et al. (1998) Object shape, object function, and object name.
back, and side. Child Dev. 46, 202–210
J. Mem. Lang. 38, 1–27
21 Meints, K. et al. (2002) What is ‘on’ and ‘under’ for 15-, 18-, and
45 Xu, F. (1999) Object individuation and object identity in infancy: the
24-month-olds? Typicality effects in early comprehension of spatial
role of spatiotemporal information, object property information, and
prepositions. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 20, 113–120
language. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 102, 113–136
22 Hespos, S.J. and Baillargeon, R. (2001) Infants’ knowledge about
46 Smith, L.B. et al. (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job
occlusion and containment events. Psychol. Sci. 12, 141–147
training for attention. Psychol. Sci. 13, 13–19
23 Pléh, C. (1998) Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In
47 Welder, A.N. and Graham, S.A. (2001) The influences of shape
Proceedings of the 29th Child Language Research Forum (Clark, E.V.
similarity and shared labels on infants’ inductive inferences about
ed.), pp. 211–219, CSLI
nonobvious object properties. Child Dev. 72, 1653–1673
24 Choi, S. et al. (1999) Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial
categories in English and Korean. Cogn. Dev. 14, 241–268 48 Kemler Nelson, D. et al. (2004) When children ask ‘What is it?’ what do
25 Clark, E.V. (1977) Strategies and the mapping problem in first language they want to know about artifacts? Psychol. Sci. 15, 384–389
acquisition. In Language Learning and Thought (Macnamara, J. ed.), 49 McDonough, L. (2002) Early concepts and early language acquisition.
pp. 147–168, Academic Press In Representation, Memory, and Development: Essays in Honor of
26 Clark, E.V. and Sengul, C.J. (1978) Strategies in the acquisition of Jean Mandler (Stein, N.L. et al., eds), pp. 115–143, Erlbaum
deixis. J. Child Lang. 5, 457–475 50 Huttenlocher, J. et al. (1983) Emergence of action categories in the
27 Majid, A. et al. (2004) Can language restructure cognition? The case child: evidence from verb meanings. Psychol. Rev. 90, 72–93
for space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 108–114 51 Clark, E.V. and Wong, A.D-W. (2002) Pragmatic directions about
28 Werker, J.F. and Lalonde, C.E. (1988) Cross-language speech percep- language use: words and word meanings. Lang. Soc. 31, 181–212
tion: initial capabilities and developmental change. Dev. Psychol. 24, 52 Gelman, S.A. et al. (1998) Beyond labeling: the role of maternal input
672–683 in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monogr. Soc. Res.
29 Werker, J.F. (1991) The ontogeny of speech perception. In Modularity Child Dev. 63 (No. 253)
and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception (Mattingly, I.G. and 53 Clark, E.V. (2001) Emergent categories in first language acqui-
Studdert-Kennedy, M. eds), pp. 91–110, Erlbaum sition. In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development
30 Best, C.T. (1994) The emergence of language-specific phonemic (Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S.C. eds), pp. 379–405, Cambridge
influences in infant speech perception. In The Development of University Press
Speech Perception (Goodman, J.C. and Nusbaum, H.C. eds), 54 Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. (2001) Individuation, relativity, and
pp. 167–224, MIT Press early word learning. In Language Acquisition and Conceptual
31 Slobin, D.I. (1996) From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for Development (Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S.C. eds), pp. 215–256,
speaking’. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Gumperz, J.J. and Cambridge University Press
Levinson, S.C. eds), pp. 70–96, Cambridge University Press 55 Waxman, S.R. and Markow, D.B. (1995) Words as invitations to form
32 Bowerman, M. (1996) Learning how to structure space for language: a categories: evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Cogn. Psychol.
crosslinguistic perspective. In Language and Space (Bloom, P. et al., 29, 257–302
eds), pp. 385–436, MIT Press 56 Xu, F. (2002) The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in
33 Bowerman, M. et al. (2002) The crosslinguistic encoding of goal infancy. Cognition 85, 223–250
directed motion in child-caregiver discourse. In Space in Language – 57 Diesendruck, G. (2003) Categories for names or names for categories?
Location, Motion, Path, and Manner. 31st Stanford Child Language The interplay between domain-specific conceptual structure and
Research Forum (Clark, E.V. ed.), pp. S1–S122, CSLI language. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18, 759–787
www.sciencedirect.com
478 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.10 October 2004

58 Mandler, J. and McDonough, L. (1993) Concept formation in infancy. 64 Deák, G.O. and Maratsos, M.P. (1998) On having complex represen-
Cogn. Psychol. 37, 60–96 tations of things: preschoolers use multiple labels for objects and
59 Gentner, D. and Medina, J. (1998) Similarity and the development of people. Dev. Psychol. 34, 224–240
rules. Cognition 65, 263–297 65 Waxman, S.R. and Hatch, T. (1992) Beyond the basics: preschool
60 Hermer, L. and Spelke, E.S. (1997) Modularity and development: the children label objects flexibly at multiple hierarchical levels. J. Child
case of spatial reorientation. Cognition 61, 195–232 Lang. 19, 153–166
61 Clark, E.V. (1997) Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in 66 Gleitman, L.R. (1990) The structural sources of verb meanings. Lang.
acquisition. Cognition 64, 1–37 Acquisition 1, 3–55
62 Clark, E.V. and Svaib, T.A. (1997) Speaker perspective and reference 67 Bloom, P. and Markson, L. (1998) Intention and analogy in children’s
in young children. First Lang. 17, 57–74 naming of pictorial representations. Psychol. Sci. 9, 200–204
63 Clark, E.V. and Grossman, J.B. (1998) Pragmatic directions and
children’s word learning. J. Child Lang. 25, 1–18

Language and Conceptual Development:

a series of TICS Reviews and Opinions, beginning in the July 2004 issue

Language, conceptual development (Editorial)

Michael Siegal (July 2004)

Core systems of number

Lisa Feigenson, Stanislas Dehaene and Elizabeth Spelke (July 2004)

Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology

Kayoko Inagaki and Giyoo Hatano (August 2004)

Psychological essentialism in children

Susan Gelman (September 2004)

How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

Eve Clark (October 2004)

Number and language: how are they related?

Rochel Gelman and Brian Butterworth

Thought before language

Jean Mandler

Conceptual development and conversational understanding

Michael Siegal and Luca Surian

To follow later:
How do children create new representational resources?
Susan Carey, Barbara Sarnecka and Mathieu LeCorre

www.sciencedirect.com