Purpose-The purpose was to determine whether semantic set size, a measure of the number of semantic neighbors, influenced word learning, and whether the influence of semantic set size was broad, showing effects on multiple measures both during and after learning.Method-Thirty-six preschool children were exposed to 10 nonobjects, varying in semantic set size, paired with 10 nonwords, controlling phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Nonobject -nonword pairs were presented in a game format. Learning was measured in naming and referent identification tasks administered before, during, and one-week after training.Results-Results showed no differences in naming or identifying the referents of the nonobjectnonword pairs with small versus large semantic set sizes before and during training. However, oneweek after training, children named and identified the referents of nonobject -nonword pairs with small set sizes more accurately than those with large set sizes.Conclusions-Similarity to known representations appears to influence word learning, regardless of whether the similarity involves lexical or semantic representations. However, the direction of the effect of similarity to known representations on word learning varies depending on the specific type of representation involved. Specifically, lexical similarity speeds learning, whereas semantic similarity slows learning. Keywords word learning; vocabulary; semantic set size When a child encounters a novel sound form paired with a novel object, the child must recognize that a new word was heard and initiate the process of learning that word. Assuming that the phonemes of the novel word are known (e.g., correctly perceived and/or articulated), learning the novel word presumably involves activating known phonological representations, specifically mental representations of the individual phonemes that compose the word (e.g., Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Storkel, Armbruster, & Hogan, 2006). Activated phonological representations, in turn, spread activation to known lexical representations, the mental representation of the whole-word sound form as an integrated unit (e.g., Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Storkel et al., 2006). However, none of the known lexical representations will exactly match the novel word. In complement, the novel object will activate known semantic representations, the mental representation of the characteristics of the referent (e.g., Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Storkel et al., 2006). Like known lexical representations, none of the known semantic representations will exactly match the novel object. As a result, creation
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript of a new lexical and semantic representation likely will be initiated (e.g., Storkel et al., 2006). In addition, associations or connections will be created between the new lexical and semantic representations and between the new representations and similar existing representations (e.g., Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997;Storkel et al., 2006). This suggests the ...