weirdami wrote:
My experience with children is "what does that mean". Maybe I'm just around lots of stupid kids. :-(
Ah, well if they're listening to conversation and can't bind an unfamiliar word with something concrete in the environment the it works differently. If their search of the immediate environment and the context doesn't allow them to make a reasonable guess as to what the word might mean then they have to ask. But if you present them with two objects, one which is known to them and one which isn't, and ask them what an "x" is, where "x" is a made up word, then they will automatically assume that "x" is the label which applies to the unknown object. This is just a simplified example.
I remember doing this when I was in infant school, so probably aged about 5. We were taken in to the school hall which was used for PE and had climbing frames and other gym equipment which the teachers collectively referred to as the "apparatus". As soon as we walked in to the room we were warned very sternly not to touch the apparatus as it is very dangerous. Not knowing what "apparatus" meant, I applied the label to a very bright spot of light on one end of the wall, because it was the only thing in the room for which I didn't already have a label. I was therefore terrified of going near that wall because I thought the light would burn me. That's a good example of when children's labelling techniques get it wrong!
--
moto
