Unpacking Lexical Acquisition: Exploring Synonyms for 'Learned' in Word Mastery

Introduction

Words, seemingly simple units of language, are in fact complex and fundamental to communication. The journey of vocabulary acquisition, particularly in early childhood, has long fascinated researchers. How do we, as humans, master this intricate system of linking sounds to meanings, syntactic roles, and even written forms? This question has fueled decades of research, probing whether our linguistic prowess stems from specialized, innate mechanisms or from more general cognitive abilities applicable across various domains.

The speed at which children learn words is truly remarkable. By kindergarten, a child’s vocabulary is, on average, substantial, suggesting they acquire multiple new words daily. This rapid learning presents a puzzle, famously illustrated by Quine’s “gavagai” example. Imagine a linguist encountering a new language and observing a rabbit. A native speaker says “gavagai.” Does this word mean “rabbit,” “hopping,” “furry,” or something else entirely? This inherent ambiguity is compounded by the cognitive limitations of young learners. Toddlers are still developing abstract thought, mathematical skills, and even basic motor coordination. How, then, do children navigate this complexity and rapidly become learned in the lexicon of their language? Or, to put it another way, how do they become proficient, skilled, knowledgeable, or adept in word usage so quickly?

For a significant period, the prevailing view attributed this feat to innate, language-specific abilities. It was proposed that children possess pre-wired knowledge or constraints that guide them toward correct word meanings. For instance, children might instinctively assume new words refer to whole objects rather than parts or features, or that words denote basic-level categories like “rabbit” rather than more specific or general classifications. These predispositions, termed constraints, principles, or prior expectations, appeared to align with observed behaviors in young learners.

However, the field of word learning is undergoing a significant paradigm shift. Emerging theories emphasize a more nuanced understanding of learning mechanisms and the crucial role of the environment. New perspectives highlight the richness of the input children receive and the power of simple, domain-general learning processes. Supported by advancements in technology like eye-tracking and computational modeling, we are gaining a clearer picture of the subtle cues available to children and how they leverage these cues to learn. This evolving landscape challenges the long-held belief in innate, specialized language abilities.

These innovations largely reinforce previous findings about children’s consistent behaviors, validating earlier research as a crucial foundation. However, they offer deeper insights into the origins of these patterns, suggesting they may arise not from innate specialization, but from more fundamental learning mechanisms. The field is thus moving from identifying specialized abilities to exploring the structured nature of linguistic input and the emergent properties of simple learning processes. This shift underscores how children actively shape their learning environment and, crucially, learn to learn words as they develop, becoming increasingly experienced and well-versed in language.

The Challenge of Referential Ambiguity

Quine’s “gavagai” scenario vividly illustrates the problem of referential ambiguity. Consider a typical preschool setting, as depicted in Figure 1. It’s filled with numerous objects—tables, toys, decorations—each a potential candidate for a new word’s meaning. A novel word could refer to any of these objects, their properties (color, size), or even the speaker’s intentions or emotions related to them.

Figure 1. A typical preschool classroom presents a multitude of potential referents for a new word.

In such a complex environment, if a teacher exclaims, “Look, a blicket!” how does a child discern the intended meaning? Despite this complexity, children master this challenge with apparent ease. By 16 months, they understand that “table” refers to the blue object in the foreground and can demonstrate this understanding by pointing. Furthermore, their comprehension expands to encompass other tables, indicating an evolving and nuanced understanding of the word’s meaning.

Early studies suggested children could establish word-referent mappings after minimal exposure, a phenomenon termed “fast-mapping.” They could quickly grasp new words, sometimes even those parents might prefer they didn’t learn! Moreover, the pace of vocabulary acquisition accelerates dramatically in the second year of life. Infants typically utter their first word around 10-12 months. Vocabulary growth is initially slow, but between 18 and 24 months, it surges. This period, known as the “vocabulary spurt,” sees children add words at rates as high as ten new words every two weeks.

While these estimates might represent a surface-level understanding of vocabulary, focusing on basic word usage, they highlight children’s impressive language-learning capacity. Even if these estimates don’t fully capture the depth of word knowledge that develops from childhood to adulthood, the sheer volume of words acquired, given the inherent ambiguity and children’s cognitive immaturity, is striking. The central question remains: how do they become so learned in language so efficiently?

The Rise of Language-Specific Constraints: An Earlier Perspective

The notion of innate, specialized knowledge guiding word learning emerged from a broader intellectual movement in developmental psychology during the 1980s and 1990s. This era witnessed a departure from Piagetian theories, which emphasized the sensory-motor origins of cognition and the gradual construction of abstract thought. Piaget suggested that abstract logical reasoning only fully develops around age seven.

However, new research challenged this view, suggesting that Piaget might have underestimated young children’s cognitive abilities. Novel techniques employing infant-looking measures, rather than overt behaviors, revealed surprisingly sophisticated early understanding. Infants seemed to grasp basic physical principles, such as object permanence and causality, suggesting an innate understanding of objects, agents, numbers, and even social cognition.

In language development, this perspective translated into theories positing language-specific knowledge and processes. It was proposed that children overcome referential ambiguity through deductive hypothesis testing, guided by constraints or strategies that narrow down potential word meanings, or by understanding speakers’ referential intentions. For instance, the “whole object constraint” suggests children assume a new word refers to the entire object, while “mutual exclusivity” posits that children assume different words have distinct meanings. When a parent labels a novel container “mug,” a child might use the whole object constraint to link “mug” to the container. Later, hearing “handle,” and already knowing “mug,” mutual exclusivity might lead them to infer “handle” refers to a different part of the mug.

Numerous mechanisms were proposed to explain children’s systematic word-learning behaviors, often with competing explanations for the same phenomenon. Consider how children learn novel words in the presence of both familiar and unfamiliar objects. Mutual exclusivity explains this as reasoning based on assumptions about word function. However, it could also stem from children’s understanding that novel names tend to correspond to novel categories, or a principle that word meanings contrast in some way. Alternatively, it could be attributed to children’s understanding of social cues – assuming adults name the most novel item present. While these explanations differ in their underlying principles, they all suggest children bring pre-existing knowledge or assumptions to the word-learning process.

Similarly, explanations for the vocabulary spurt often invoked language-specific mechanisms. These included a shift from associative learning to a conceptual understanding of words as symbols within a communicative system, or a sudden “naming insight” – realizing that most objects have names. These accounts provided detailed descriptions of children’s behavior in word-learning situations.

A key characteristic of these “specialized-mechanism” accounts was their domain-specificity – relying on knowledge and processes tailored to the specific challenges of word learning. Another was their relative static nature; they often lacked explanations for how these word-learning behaviors themselves develop. This focus on developmental processes – the causal factors shaping word-learning behaviors – is driving the current shift in the field.

Reframing Word Learning: The Role of Domain-General Processes

Recent research is re-examining referential ambiguity and the origins of word-learning principles, considering the possibility that domain-general processes, operating within a rich environment, might be sufficient for word learning. This perspective suggests that general learning and inference mechanisms, common across cognitive domains, may underlie word learning, sometimes creating the appearance of specialized language knowledge. This opens avenues to explore how non-linguistic factors and child-environment interactions shape word learning. It proposes that children are remarkable word learners not due to innate specialization, but because they flexibly assemble simple processes to achieve rapid vocabulary growth, becoming highly skilled and proficient in language use.

This shift towards domain-general processes is partly motivated by a revised understanding of the challenges children face. The traditional framing of referential ambiguity often adopts an adult perspective, where numerous potential referents are apparent. From this viewpoint, the problem seems overwhelming.

However, examining word learning from a child’s perspective, using head-mounted cameras and eye-tracking, reveals a different picture. Young learners typically have a limited visual field, with often only one or two objects in view when words are presented (Figure 2). This significantly reduces referential ambiguity compared to Quine’s original scenario. While abstract interpretations (feelings, intentions) remain possible, children are often guided towards the correct object, suggesting that previously overlooked factors like visual field size and physical limitations play a crucial role.

Figure 2. The number of namable objects in view differs significantly between a child’s (top panel) and a parent’s (bottom panel) perspective.

Similarly, a child’s selection of an unnamed object for a novel word might not be sophisticated deduction but simply attentional preference for novelty. Even without linguistic input, children tend to focus on novel objects. Furthermore, children often attend to objects their mothers hold, a simple bias that can lead them to items recently manipulated or offered, mimicking social inference. Parents also frequently label whatever children are already attending to, effectively resolving referential ambiguity. These scenarios, previously attributed to specialized knowledge like mutual exclusivity or social inference, may instead be driven by general attentional biases. While specialized knowledge may play a role later in development, these domain-general factors appear surprisingly potent, especially in early infancy.

Distinguishing Referent Selection from Sustained Learning

Referent selection is only one facet of word learning. Children must also remember word-object pairings, store semantic and visual information, and establish durable links for later word recognition. While constraints like mutual exclusivity were thought to underpin this learning, recent research suggests this retention step is more complex. Children can successfully identify a novel object for a new word in a given moment, but this doesn’t guarantee long-term memory of the association. For example, two-year-olds excel at novel object selection when presented with a new word, but often fail to recall these “fast-mapped” words just minutes later. This distinction was often missed in earlier studies that retested mapping ability rather than memory after a delay.

However, retention is not independent of the learning process. Pre-exposure exploration of to-be-named objects enhances retention. Retention abilities also improve with vocabulary growth. By 2.5 years, children reliably retain word-referent mappings formed after brief exposure. Thus, instead of instantaneous word-object mapping from the outset, word learning abilities develop gradually, becoming more refined and learned over time as vocabulary and world knowledge accumulate, alongside understanding of naming conventions and social interaction.

Furthermore, extended word learning differs from immediate referent selection. Recent fast-mapping experiments suggest it’s not purely logical inference. Upon hearing a novel word, multiple interpretations compete. This competition, occurring rapidly, is influenced by domain-general processes like attention, prior learning, and, in older children, potentially by understanding intentions or linguistic knowledge. The “winning” interpretation (e.g., the selected referent) strengthens the word-meaning link, while competing interpretations weaken.

Crucially, this competition mechanism, fundamental to referent selection, is also central to other domains like music perception, categorization, and decision-making. This suggests referent selection might fundamentally arise from general processes operating on linguistic, social, and visual inputs. Like referential ambiguity, fast-mapping is increasingly viewed as a product of multiple domain-general processes, lacking language-specific innate knowledge. The following discussion on the vocabulary spurt reinforces this conclusion.

A Gradual, Continuous Vocabulary Spurt

With the renewed focus on retention and the gradual strengthening of word-meaning links over multiple encounters, research on fast-mapping now considers longer-term developmental processes. Similarly, examining vocabulary growth over months and years reveals insights into the mechanisms driving vocabulary expansion. Does this broader view also point towards domain-general processes? The answer appears to be affirmative.

The vocabulary spurt, a rapid acceleration in the rate of vocabulary acquisition, is a key phenomenon in this area. Figure 3 illustrates this: in the initial months after first words, vocabulary growth is slow, adding only a word or two weekly. Around the time children reach a productive vocabulary of about 50 words, typically around 18 months, word acquisition accelerates dramatically. This suggests a non-linear shift in vocabulary development, moving from a slower pace to becoming highly learned in a short time.

Figure 3. Number of words known over time for individual children. From Plunkett (2000).

Previously, the vocabulary spurt was attributed to underlying shifts in word-learning mechanisms, such as the sudden emergence of constraints, intention-reading skills, or the “naming insight.” However, McMurray (2007) demonstrated that the accelerating vocabulary growth curve is a natural consequence of two basic facts about word learning: 1) children learn multiple words concurrently, and 2) words vary in difficulty. Both are uncontroversial.

Children learn many words simultaneously – “cup,” “dog,” “run,” “blue,” etc. Words also vary in difficulty. “Cup,” referring to a concrete, easily individuated object, is simpler than “share,” which is abstract and relational. McMurray mathematically showed that these two factors inevitably produce an accelerating learning curve, regardless of whether learning words, motor skills, or recipes. Thus, the vocabulary spurt can be explained without invoking specialized mechanisms or sudden shifts in learning processes.

This is not to say that social skills or learning strategies don’t develop around this age. Indeed, developmental changes occur in gaze-following, pragmatic competence, and categorization abilities. Furthermore, as vocabularies grow, children become more adept at using existing word knowledge, grammatical cues, and conversational context to learn even more words, becoming increasingly learned and sophisticated language users. However, these changes are not necessary to explain the spurt; it emerges naturally from simple learning dynamics.

Future Directions and Implications

New perspectives on referential ambiguity, fast-mapping, and the vocabulary spurt highlight a shift in understanding early word learning. This emerging view emphasizes domain-general processes like novelty preference, attention, statistical learning, association, competition, and parallel learning, alongside environmental factors and bodily constraints.

More significantly, this view proposes that these general processes are central to early word learning, working in concert with developing social competencies to bootstrap lexical development and the acquisition of syntax and more complex linguistic mappings. These processes operate dynamically over time. An object capturing a 15-month-old’s attention with a small vocabulary will be perceived differently by a 30-month-old with a larger vocabulary and more sophisticated linguistic interaction skills. Domain-general processes evolve developmentally, enabling increasingly sophisticated word learning to emerge from the interaction of simple mechanisms – none inherently “smart” on their own. Thus, word learning is remarkable not because of specialized, innate processes, but because of the flexible, developmental system created by the interplay of simple, domain-general mechanisms, allowing children to become truly learned in their native tongue.

This perspective aligns with a developmental systems approach, emphasizing bidirectional interactions between genes, biology, environment, and real-time child behavior. This framework facilitates understanding how child and environment mutually influence each other and how processes across domains interact. For example, visual referents can enhance auditory discrimination, and memory of object locations can aid word-object mapping.

Understanding these cascading influences across development is crucial. Word learning is not isolated; it occurs alongside speech perception and production development. Research on children at risk for autism, who show delayed complex babbling, reveals developmental cascades: less mature visual-manual exploration leads to reduced oral exploration, impacting articulatory development. These cascades – from real-time behaviors to long-term developmental changes – shape the perceptual and articulatory foundations for word learning.

Furthermore, complex developmental problems spanning perception, action, social interaction, cognition, and timescales might be more efficiently solved simultaneously than in isolation. Computational modeling suggests that acquiring word-object mappings can, in turn, refine early auditory organization by highlighting meaningful sound distinctions.

This systems view may also pave the way for more effective interventions. Vocabulary knowledge varies across socioeconomic status, gender, and literacy levels. Children with language or hearing impairments often have smaller vocabularies and less comprehensive word knowledge. An overemphasis on innate constraints offers limited intervention leverage. However, a systems perspective suggests alternative approaches. For autism, interventions might focus on supporting early motor development to enhance object exploration and, subsequently, articulatory development and communication. Similarly, for Specific Language Impairment, interventions targeting real-time processing and competition mechanisms might improve word recognition and subsequent language development.

Much work remains to fully elucidate the relationships between real-time behaviors, learning, and development. However, recent advancements in experimental, observational, and statistical methods, coupled with evolving theoretical perspectives, are fostering a richer understanding of children’s developing language systems and opening new avenues for intervention, ultimately helping all children become learned and fluent language users.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this article was supported by NIH grants to LKS (HD045713) and BM (DC008089). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

[1] Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2] Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: Categorization origins of lexical categories. Journal of Child Language, 21, 707–729.
[3] Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[4] Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245–272.
[5] Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25, 278–298.
[6] Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Joint attention without gaze following: Human infants and their parents coordinate attention to objects through eye-hand coordination. Infancy, 17, 599–624.
[7] Roy, B. C., Frank, M. C., & Roy, D. (2009). Exploring word learning in a high-density longitudinal corpus of child-directed speech. Infancy, 14, 617–641.
[8] McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Using your words: Lexical knowledge influences phonetic processing. Cognition, 123, 34–45.
[9] Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Ellefson, M. R. (2011). One-shot word learning: When explicit memory beats implicit generalization. Child Development, 82, 1588–1600.
[10] Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. J. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17–29.
[11] Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bailey, L. M., & Wenger, R. (1992). Young children and verbs: Lexical categories or event categories? Journal of Child Language, 19, 3–34.
[12] Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1987). The development of categorization in infancy. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 233–253). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Heibeck, T. H., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: An examination of fast mapping. Child Development, 58, 1021–1034.
[14] Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2008). Fast mapping really is robust: Evidence from spatiotemporal continuity. Infancy, 13, 507–533.
[15] Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in 5-month-old infants. Cognition, 20, 191–208.
[16] Leslie, A. M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173–186.
[17] Spelke, E. S. (1994). Initial knowledge: Six suggestions. Cognition, 50, 431–445.
[18] Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[19] Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Child Development, 66, 1275–1292.
[20] Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.
[21] Merriman, W. E., & Bowman, M. D. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(2, Serial No. 220).
[22] Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[23] Akhtar, N., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (1996). The role of discourse novelty in children’s early word learning. Child Development, 67, 635–648.
[24] Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., Akhtar, N., & Reppucci, N. D. (2004). Children’s reliance on speaker’s reference in word learning. Child Development, 75, 1035–1051.
[25] Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation. New York, NY: Wiley.
[26] Reznick, J. S., & Goldfield, B. A. (1992). Rapid change in vocabulary size in early language development. Developmental Psychology, 28, 406–413.
[27] Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2013). Infant-Toddler word learning via multimodal dynamic distribution. Cognitive Science, 37, 489–519.
[28] Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via observation. Child Development, 79, 1245–1260.
[29] Kidd, C., & Kidd, J. T. (2010). Learning and looking: Novelty preference in infancy. Developmental Science, 13, 362–370.
[30] Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.
[31] Hunter, M. A., Ames, E. W., & Koepke, J. E. (1982). Differential visual habituation in the newborn infant. Developmental Psychology, 18, 298–302.
[32] Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875–890.
[33] Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1453–1463.
[34] Akhtar, N., Dunham, P. J., & Dunham, F. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary development in the second year. Journal of Child Language, 18, 41–49.
[35] Horst, J. S., Samuelson, L. K., Mather, E., & Plunkett, K. (2011). Fast mapping may not be so fast after all. Child Development, 82, 1844–1856.
[36] Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). The role of object exploration in preschoolers’ novel word learning. Developmental Science, 15, 239–248.
[37] Graf Estes, K., & кросс-языковое взаимодействие, H. M. (2008). The effect of delay on preschoolers’ retention of fast-mapped words. Infancy, 13, 61–82.
[38] Samuelson, L. K., & Horst, J. S. (2015). The development of lexicon-driven attention to shape. Cognition, 139, 158–170.
[39] Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[40] Siskind, J. M. (1996). Grounding language in perception. Artificial Intelligence Review, 10, 449–483.
[41] Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 249–272.
[42] Kachergis, G., Yu, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2011). Word learning as a Bayesian process of integrating cross-situational information. Psychological Review, 118, 1–22.
[43] Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words are learned defines how objects are seen. Psychological Science, 22, 1501–1508.
[44] Smith, L. B., Smith, A. D., & Blythe, R. A. (2011). Cross-situational learning: Not so constrained after all. Cognitive Science, 35, 1594–1627.
[45] Yu, C., & Ballard, D. H. (2007). A multimodal optimization approach to early lexicon acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 925–963.
[46] Swingley, D. (2008). What’s “fast mapping” got to do with word learning? Developmental Science, 11, 90–100.
[47] Samuelson, L. K., & McMurray, B. (2006). Exemplar variability and children’s novel word learning. Psychological Science, 17, 557–565.
[48] McMurray, B., Aslin, R. N., & Toscano, J. C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: Sensitivity to distributional information in speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 1039–1057.
[49] McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.
[50] Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
[51] Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.
[52] Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). The importance of gaze in infant social cognition. Developmental Psychology, 38, 958–968.
[53] Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[54] Waxman, S. R., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Early word learning and conceptual development: Trends and new directions. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 20–26.
[55] Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Child language. In D. Osherson & E. Smith (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Language (2nd ed., pp. 211–244). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[56] Fisher, C. L., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. R. (1994). When it is better to miss the point: Trade-offs in category learning. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), “Learnability” and constraints in language acquisition (pp. 195–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[57] Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Evidence from the syntax and semantics of space. Cognition, 87, 151–178.
[58] Bloom, P. (2002). Descartes’ baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[59] Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture: Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[60] Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[61] Westermann, G., Mareschal, D., Johnson, M. H., Sirois, S., Spratling, M. W., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2007). Neuroconstructivism. Developmental Science, 10, 75–84.
[62] Werker, J. F., & Curtin, S. (2005). Speech sounds in infancy: Perceptual development and links to linguistic experience. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 203–232). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
[63] Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.
[64] Samuelson, L. K., & Richman, A. M. (2010). The role of known words in infant statistical word segmentation. Developmental Psychology, 46, 109–125.
[65] Iverson, J. M., Hall, A. E., Patel, N., Esler, A., & Luna, B. (2008). Links between motor and communicative development in infants at-risk for autism. Infancy, 13, 529–552.
[66] Iverson, J. M., Wozniak, R. H., & Daddona, L. (2007). Relations between oral motor skills and early speech production in infants at risk for autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 25–39.
[67] Landa, R. J., & Garrett-Mayer, E. (2006). Development in infants with autism spectrum disorders: A prospective study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 629–638.
[68] McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
[69] Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
[70] Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248.
[71] Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral language abilities in kindergarteners from two social classes. Developmental Psychology, 23, 108–116.
[72] Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[73] Plunkett, K. (2000). Vocabulary growth in infancy: A dynamic systems approach. Language, 76(1), 53-98.

Unpacking Lexical Acquisition: Exploring Synonyms for ‘Learned’ in Word Mastery