SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Booth, A. E., & Waxman, S. (2002). Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 948957.
  • Caldwell, C. A., & Smith, K. (2012). Cultural evolution and perpetuation of arbitrary communicative conventions in experimental microsocieties. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43807.
  • Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, E. V. (1997). Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition, 64(1), 137.
  • Clark, E. V., & Amaral, P. M. (2010). Children build on pragmatic information in language acquisition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 445457.
  • Cornish, H. (2011). Language adapts: Exploring the cultural dynamics of iterated learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
  • Fay, N., Garrod, S., Roberts, L., & Swoboda, N. (2010). The interactive evolution of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 351386.
  • Geeraerts, D. (2009). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. J. (2005). Relational categories. In W. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 151175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Keil, F. C. (1994). Explanation, association, and the acquisition of word meaning. Lingua, 92, 169196.
  • Kelemen, D., & Bloom, P. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge in simple categorization tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(3), 390395.
  • Kemler Nelson, D. (1995). Principle-based inferences in young children's categorization: Revisiting the impact of function on the naming of artifacts. Cognitive Development, 10(3), 347380.
  • Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(31), 1068110686.
  • Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 2244.
  • Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1997). Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(4), 11531169.
  • Markman, E. M. (1994). Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua, 92, 199227.
  • Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207238.
  • Perfors, A., & Navarro, D. (2011). Language evolution is shaped by the structure of the world: An iterated learning analysis. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 477482). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). The evolution of frequency distributions: Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition, 111(3), 317328.
  • Regier, T. (2005). The emergence of words: Attentional learning in form and meaning. Cognitive Science, 29, 819865.
  • Sandhofer, C. M., & Smith, L. B. (2001). Why children learn color and size words so differently: Evidence from adults' learning of artificial terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 600617.
  • Smith, L. B., Colunga, E., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Knowledge as process: Contextually-cued attention and early word learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 12871314.
  • Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1319.
    Direct Link:
  • Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. (2006). An attentional learning account of the shape bias: Reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005). Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 13391343.
  • Smith, K., Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S. (2013). Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 13481353). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Smith, K., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition, 116(3), 444449.
  • Steels, L. (2003). Evolving grounded communication for robots. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 308312.
  • Theisen-White, C., Kirby, S., & Oberlander, J. (2011). Integrating the horizontal and vertical cultural transmission of novel communication systems. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 956961). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Tomasello, M. (2000). The social-pragmatic theory of word learning. Pragmatics, 10(4), 401413.
  • Voiklis, J., & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: Negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 607634.
  • Waxman, S. R., & Kosowski, T. D. (1990). Nouns mark category relations: Toddlers' and preschoolers' word-learning biases. Child Development, 61, 14611473.
  • Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114(2), 245272.