The relative strengths of indirect and direct word learning

Indirect word learning lacks many of the overt social-pragmatic cues to reference available in direct word learning, yet the two result in equally robust mappings when comprehension is assessed immediately after learning. The 3 studies reported here investigated how 3-year-olds (N 96) respond to more challenging tests of the relative strengths of indirect and direct word learning. In Study 1, children’s comprehension of indirectly and directly learned proper and common names was tested after a 2-day delay. Both types of learning resulted in proper name mappings that picked out an individual and in common name mappings that could be extended to another category member. In Studies 2 and 3, children’s comprehension was tested after they had been provided with additional, and sometimes inconsistent, information about the scope of previously learned words. There was a hint of a difference between indirect and direct word learning, but results overall suggested that the two were equivalent. Very young children can learn new words rapidly, apparently effortlessly, and often accurately. For example, given just nine exposures to a new noun paired with unambiguous reference to a novel object, even 13-month-olds can learn and extend the new word appropriately in comprehension even after a delay of 24 hr (Woodward, Markman, & Fitzsimmons, 1994). Many studies on early word learning have used just this type of unambiguous labeling, which includes a deictic statement and an established joint focus of attention, to explore how children interpret ne