The importance of being interpreted: Grounded words and children's relational reasoning

Abstract

Although young children typically have trouble reasoning relationally, they are aided by the presence of "relational" words (e.g., Gentner and Rattermann, 1991).They also reason well about commonly experienced event structures (e.g., Fivush, 1984).To explore what makes a word "relational" and therefore helpful in relational reasoning, we hypothesized that these words activate well-understood event structures. Furthermore, the activated schema must be open enough (without too much specificity) that it can be applied analogically to novel problems. Four experiments examine this hypothesis by exploring: how training with a label influence the schematic interpretation of a scene, what kinds of scenes are conducive to schematic interpretation, and whether children must figure out the interpretation them- selves to benefit from the act of interpreting a scene as an event. Experiment 1 shows the superiority of schema-evoking words over words that do not connect to schematized experiences. Experiments 2 and 3 further reveal that these words must be applied to per- ceptual instances that require cognitive effort to connect to a label rather than unrelated or concretely related instances in order to draw attention to relational structure. Experi- ment 4 provides evidence that even when children do not work out an interpretation for themselves, just the act of interpreting an ambiguous scene is potent for relational general- ization. The present results suggest that relational words (and in particular their meanings) are created from the act of interpreting a perceptual situation in the context of a word. © 2012 Son, Smith, Gold- stone and Leslie.