---
title: "When more is less — paper by Omar et al. (2024)"
description: "The authors build artificial Hebrew-like words in the Semitic root-and-pattern style. 55 references."
authors: ["Niveen Omar", "Karen Banai", "Bracha Nir"]
year: 2024
venue: "Language and Cognition 16"
source: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000346/type/journal_article"
doi: "10.1017/langcog.2024.34"
licence: "CC BY (journal licence per DOAJ; Language and Cognition)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/omar-2024-more-less-impact-multimorphemic-words/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/omar-2024-more-less-impact-multimorphemic-words/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/7/) / When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning

# When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning

**Authors:** Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and [Bracha Nir](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/bracha-nir/) · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** Language and Cognition 16 · **Publisher:** [Cambridge University Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/cambridge-university-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY (journal licence per DOAJ; Language and Cognition)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.34) · [PDF](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2DEB01941FE6B1823CE375A615B1B7C5/S1866980824000346a.pdf/div-class-title-when-more-is-less-the-impact-of-multimorphemic-words-on-learning-word-meaning-div.pdf) · [DOI 10.1017/langcog.2024.34](https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.34) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4403200941)

**Citations:** 1 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper asks whether a sub-lexical piece of a word, one that marks a broad category, changes how learners acquire the narrower meaning of the whole word. The authors build artificial Hebrew-like words in the Semitic root-and-pattern style. A shared syllabic pattern signals a superordinate manner-of-motion class (skipping or flipping). Each whole word names an individual moving character. Learners in a multimorphemic condition are compared with learners of monomorphemic labels, using a word-learning test plus conceptual and morphological generalization tests. Previous labeling work, including Lupyan's Label Feedback Hypothesis, would predict that a shared form helps. Instead, the shared pattern made learning of the specific characters worse, mostly on the motion dimension the pattern encodes. The authors conclude that a word-form's influence reaches beyond its own category level and can have opposite effects at different levels of a hierarchy. Put simply, the more salient a feature is at the superordinate level, the less it helps tell members apart below it.

## Key points
- Stimuli: novel Semitic-like proper nouns. A syllabic pattern (similar to real Hebrew maCCéC for instruments, as in mazrék 'syringe') encodes a manner-of-motion class, and the full word encodes one moving character.
- Main result: in the main experiment, a shared pattern lowered word-learning accuracy, and the drop was concentrated on Motion trials, which probe the pattern-encoded dimension.
- The negative link between generalizing a manner and learning it at the character level held for skipping but not flipping (Table 3). The authors relate this to flipping being visually more complex and less human-like, which may make it more salient.
- The theoretical framing combines the Label Feedback Hypothesis (Lupyan, 2008; 2012) with Ambridge's (2020) view that exemplars are re-represented at every level of abstraction.
- Stated limitation: the conceptual generalization test requires recalling the specific characters, so it mixes superordinate and character-level learning. A character-free categorization test is proposed.

## Interesting ideas
- Bound pieces of a word, such as affixes or patterns, can signal a whole family of meanings, as with drug suffixes like -statin and -cillin or place endings like -cester; this lets a word's form point to its class even when the word itself is unknown.
- A feature that defines a shared class becomes useless, or even misleading, for distinguishing members of that class.
- The study measures learning separately for each dimension of meaning (motion versus other features) rather than reporting one overall score, which is how the level-specific effect became visible.
- A monomorphemic control condition keeps the items and meanings fixed and varies only the internal structure of the form, isolating the effect of form.
- The authors acknowledge that a test needing two levels of recall at once cannot separate those levels, and they propose a test that probes only one.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (tokens): the morphology layer could map productive suffixes to WordNet-style class hints for out-of-vocabulary words, recording the suffix as the explainable reason for the guess.
- **I2** (world): when resolving which of several same-class entities is meant, the world model should down-weight the attributes they share as a class and rely on attributes that differ among them.
- **I3** (learn): evaluation could break down parser and frame accuracy by relation type or role level, so that a gain in one layer cannot hide a loss in another.
- **I4** (learn): negative controls could replace morphologically transparent words with opaque ones in the same contexts, to check whether a model's success really depends on morphology.
- **I5** (answer): reader tests should include items that probe a single step (category knowledge alone versus entity recall alone), so that failures can be traced to the right stage.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Haifa](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-haifa/) — University, Haifa, Israel · 27 works · 871 citations

📚 Shelves (5): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 798 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 463 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 260 works

🧭 Topics (2): [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 1,485 works · [📖 Lexical semantics & word embeddings](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/lexical-semantics/) · 40 works

## Cite

Cite as: Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and Bracha Nir. 2024. When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning. Language and Cognition 16.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{omar2024when,
  title = {{When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning}},
  author = {Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and Bracha Nir},
  booktitle = {Language and Cognition 16},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1017/langcog.2024.34},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.34}
}
```

- [← previous Universal Dependencies for Saraiki](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/alam-2024-universal-dependencies-saraiki/)
- [next → A First Look at the Ugaritic Poetic Text Corpus](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/donicke-2024-first-look-ugaritic-poetic-text/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/7/)

## References

55 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Althaus, N., & Mareschal, D. (2014). Labels direct infants’ attention to commonalities during novel category learning. PLoS One, 9(7), e99670. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099670)
2. Ambridge, B. (2020). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ambridge%2C+B%2E+%282020%29%2E+Abstractions+made+of+exemplars+or+%E2%80%98You%E2%80%99re+all+right%2C+and+I%E2%80%99ve+changed+my+mind%E2%80%99%3A+Response+to+commentators%2E+First+Language%2C+40%285%E2%80%936%29%2C+640%E2%80%93659%2E)
3. Aronoff, M. (2007). Language: Between words and grammar. The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives, 55–79. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aronoff%2C+M%2E+%282007%29%2E+Language%3A+Between+words+and+grammar%2E+The+Mental+Lexicon%3A+Core+Perspectives%2C+55%E2%80%9379%2E)
4. Banai, K., Nir, B., Moav-Scheff, R., & Bar-Ziv, N. (2020). A role for incidental auditory learning in auditory-visual word learning among kindergarten children. Journal of Vision, 20(3), 4–4. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1167/jovi.20.3.4)
5. Balaban, M. T., & Waxman, S. R. (1997). Do words facilitate object categorization in 9-month-old infants?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64(1), 3–26. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2332)
6. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). [Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bates-2015-fitting-linear-mixed-effects-models/). Preprint, arXiv:1406.5823. [↗](https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823)
7. Barsalou, L. W., Huttenlocher, J., & Lamberts, K. (1998). Basing categorization on individuals and events. Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 203–272. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0687)
8. Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (2013). Morphological factors in visual word identification in 1 2 Hebrew. In Morphological aspects of language processing (271 pages). Psychology Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bentin%2C+S%2E%2C+%26+Frost%2C+R%2E+%282013%29%2E+Morphological+factors+in+visual+word+identification+in+1+2+Hebrew%2E+In+Morphological+aspects+of+language+processing+%28271+pages%29%2E+Psychology+Press%2E)
9. Berman, R. A. (2003). Children’s lexical innovations. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 243–292. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Berman%2C+R%2E+A%2E+%282003%29%2E+Children%E2%80%99s+lexical+innovations%2E+Language+Acquisition+and+Language+Disorders%2C+28%2C+243%E2%80%93292%2E)
10. Berman, R. A. (2013). Modern Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 312–333). Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Berman%2C+R%2E+A%2E+%282013%29%2E+Modern+Hebrew%2E+In+R%2E+Hetzron+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+The+Semitic+languages+%28pp%2E+312%E2%80%93333%29%2E+Routledge%2E)
11. Blewitt, P., & Krackow, E. (1992). Acquiring taxonomic relations in lexical memory: The role of superordinate category labels. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(1), 37–56. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(92)90016-y)
12. Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2020). How are exemplar representations transformed by encoding, retrieval, and explicit knowledge? A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40(5–6), 564–568. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brooks%2C+P%2E+J%2E%2C+%26+Kempe%2C+V%2E+%282020%29%2E+How+are+exemplar+representations+transformed+by+encoding%2C+retrieval%2C+and+explicit+knowledge%3F+A+commentary+on+Ambridge+%282020%29%2E+First+Language%2C+40%285%E2%80%936%29%2C+564%E2%80%93568%2E)
13. Clapper, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1991). Learning and applying category knowledge in unsupervised domains. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65–108). Academic Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60121-8)
14. Clapper, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1994). Category invention in unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 443. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.20.2.443)
15. Davis, M. H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3773–3800. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0111)
16. Feldman, L. B., Frost, R., & Pnini, T. (1995). Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 947. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.21.4.947)
17. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frost%2C+R%2E%2C+Forster%2C+K%2E+I%2E%2C+%26+Deutsch%2C+A%2E+%281997%29%2E+What+can+we+learn+from+the+morphology+of+Hebrew%3F+A+masked%2Dpriming+investigation+of+morphological+representation%2E+Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology%3A+Le)
18. Fulkerson, A. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Words (but not tones) facilitate object categorization: Evidence from 6-and 12-month-olds. Cognition, 105(1), 218–228. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.005)
19. Gervits, F., Johanson, M., & Papafragou, A. (2023). Relevance and the Role of Labels in Categorization. Cognitive Science, 47(12), e13395. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13395)
20. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007)
21. Johanson, M., & Papafragou, A. (2016). The influence of labels and facts on children’s and adults’ categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 130–151. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.010)
22. Jouravlev, O., Taikh, A., & Jared, D. (2018). Effects of lexical ambiguity on perception: A test of the label feedback hypothesis using a visual oddball paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1842. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000573)
23. Katz, P. A. (1963). Effects of labels on children’s perception and discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 423. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045107)
24. Kolan, L., Leikin, M., & Zwitserlood, P. (2011). Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture–word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 286–298. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.004)
25. Kutlu, E., Barry-Anwar, R., Pestana, Z., Keil, A., & Scott, L. S. (2023). A label isn’t just a label: Brief training leads to label-dependent visuo-cortical processing in adults. Neuropsychologia, 178, 108443. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108443)
26. LaTourrette, A. S., & Waxman, S. R. (2020). Naming guides how 12-month-old infants encode and remember objects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35), 21230–21234. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006608117)
27. Lupyan, G. (2008). From chair to" chair": A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 348. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.348)
28. Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 54. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054)
29. Lupyan, G., & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 167–193. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.21)
30. Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1077–1083. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02028.x)
31. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.85.3.207)
32. Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1981). Strategies and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(4), 241. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.7.4.241)
33. Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Murphy%2C+G%2E+%282004%29%2E+The+big+book+of+concepts%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
34. Murphy, G. L. (2016). Is there an exemplar theory of concepts?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1035–1042. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0834-3)
35. Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 70. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.11.1.70)
36. Murphy, G. L., & Lassaline, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 93–131). MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4071.003.0007)
37. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nakagawa%2C+S%2E%2C+%26+Schielzeth%2C+H%2E+%282013%29%2E+A+general+and+simple+method+for+obtaining+R2+from+generalized+linear+mixed%2Deffects+models%2E+Methods+in+Ecology+and+Evolution%2C+4%282%29%2C+133%E2%80%93142%2E)
38. Napolitano, A. C., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. Child Development, 75(6), 1850–1870. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Napolitano%2C+A%2E+C%2E%2C+%26+Sloutsky%2C+V%2E+M%2E+%282004%29%2E+Is+a+picture+worth+a+thousand+words%3F+The+flexible+nature+of+modality+dominance+in+young+children%2E+Child+Development%2C+75%286%29%2C+1850%E2%80%931870%2E)
39. Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization?. Cognition, 80(3), B11–B20. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00112-3)
40. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39)
41. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 54. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.14.1.54)
42. Omar, N., Banai, K., & Nir, B. (2021). Learning beyond words: Morphology and the encoding of hierarchical categories. The Mental Lexicon, 16(2–3), 397–421. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Omar%2C+N%2E%2C+Banai%2C+K%2E%2C+%26+Nir%2C+B%2E+%282021%29%2E+Learning+beyond+words%3A+Morphology+and+the+encoding+of+hierarchical+categories%2E+The+Mental+Lexicon%2C+16%282%E2%80%933%29%2C+397%E2%80%93421%2E)
43. Ravid, D. (2003). A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 293–320. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ravid%2C+D%2E+%282003%29%2E+A+developmental+perspective+on+root+perception+in+Hebrew+and+Palestinian+Arabic+Language+Acquisition+and+Language+Disorders%2C+28%2C+293%E2%80%93320%2E)
44. Ravid, D. (2006). Word-level morphology: A psycholinguistic perspective on linear formation in Hebrew nominals. Morphology, 16(1), 127–148. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-006-0006-2)
45. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x)
46. Schlücker, B., & Ackermann, T. (2017). The morphosyntax of proper names: An overview. Folia Linguistica, 51(2), 309–339. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0011)
47. Shatil, N. (2006). The Hebrew Noun System: A Structural Cognitive Perspective. Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects (243- 282). Retrieved from [http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/stable/24332479](http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/stable/24332479). [↗](http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/stable/24332479)
48. Shimron, J. (2003). Semitic languages: Are they really root-based?. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 1–28. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shimron%2C+J%2E+%282003%29%2E+Semitic+languages%3A+Are+they+really+root%2Dbased%3F%2E+Language+Acquisition+and+Language+Disorders%2C+28%2C+1%E2%80%9328%2E)
49. Slobin, D. I. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified. Iconicity Inside Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature, 4, 307–322. Slobin, Dan. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.4.22slo)
50. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient. Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. H. S. Robert (Ed.), Space in Languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=I%2E+%282006%29%2E+What+makes+manner+of+motion+salient%2E+Explorations+in+linguistic+typology%2C+discourse%2C+and+cognition%2E+In+M%2E+H%2E+S%2E+Robert+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Space+in+Languages%3A+Linguistic+systems+and+cognitive+categories)
51. Sloutsky, V. M., & Napolitano, A. C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74(3), 822–833. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sloutsky%2C+V%2E+M%2E%2C+%26+Napolitano%2C+A%2E+C%2E+%282003%29%2E+Is+a+picture+worth+a+thousand+words%3F+Preference+for+auditory+modality+in+young+children%2E+Child+Development%2C+74%283%29%2C+822%E2%80%93833%2E)
52. Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event integration. Buffalo Papers in Linguistics, 91(01), 147–187. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Talmy%2C+L%2E+%281991%29%2E+Path+to+realization%3A+A+typology+of+event+integration%2E+Buffalo+Papers+in+Linguistics%2C+91%2801%29%2C+147%E2%80%93187%2E)
53. Waxman, S. R. (1990). Linguistic biases and the establishment of conceptual hierarchies: Evidence from preschool children. Cognitive Development, 5(2), 123–150. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(90)90023-m)
54. Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12-to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 257–302. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1995.1016)
55. Welder, A. N., & Graham, S. A. (2006). Infants’ categorization of novel objects with more or less obvious features. Cognitive Psychology, 52(1), 57–91. [↗](https://doi.org/10.11575/prism/43717)

*Updated 24 October 2026*