Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333

www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp

ReXections

ReXections on how color term acquisition

is constrained
Nicola J. Pitchford ¤
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Received 21 February 2006

Abstract

Compared with object word learning, young children typically Wnd learning color terms to be a
diYcult linguistic task. In this reXections article, I consider two questions that are fundamental to
investigations into the developmental acquisition of color terms. First, I consider what constrains
color term acquisition and how stable these constraints are over culture and age. I review recent stud-
ies that have identiWed conceptual, attentional, and linguistic constraints that seemingly operate on
the acquisition of color terms compared with object words and the diVerential acquisition of color
terms within a given language. Second, I consider whether these constraints are speciWc to the acqui-
sition of color terms or whether they reXect more general constraints that operate on other classes of
lexical terms such as diVerent abstract property terms.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Color term acquisition; Constraints; Color preference; Property terms

Introduction
The developmental acquisition of color terms is characterized by two key features. First,
color terms appear late in lexical acquisition relative to terms referring to familiar objects.
Second, once acquired, color terms are often applied erroneously because vocabulary
acquisition precedes comprehension. This contrasts with the ease with which children
acquire new referential mappings for familiar objects, which can often occur within a single

*
Fax: +44 115 951 5324.
E-mail address: nicola.pitchford@nottingham.ac.uk.

0022-0965/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.02.004
 N.J. Pitchford / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333 329

occurrence of hearing a novel term spoken in context and is thought to reXect a process of
fast mapping (Carey, 1978). As such, the process by which young children acquire color
terms appears to be constrained by factors that do not seem to inhibit the acquisition of
common nouns. In this reXections article, I consider two questions that appear to be funda-
mental to investigations into the nature of color term acquisition.

What constrains color term acquisition?

Both of the lead articles in this issue of the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
focus on this question. Kowalski and Zimiles (2006) consider whether an inability to
abstract color conceptually might constrain young children’s ability to learn color terms.
Sandhofer and Smith (1999) proposed a conceptual constraint whereby children initially
fail to represent color as an abstract property on which inferences can be drawn until they
have acquired several color terms. They argued that the learning of color terms draws
attention to the domain of color, through which a conceptual understanding of color
emerges. In contrast, Soja (1994) proposed an attentional constraint,1 claiming that chil-
dren can abstract color conceptually prior to color term acquisition (when other object
properties do not vary) but that attention is biased toward object shape rather than object
color because shape is more predictable than color in inferring object category or function.
Thus, an attentional bias toward shape in early word learning may hinder the mapping of
color terms to perceptual representations of color because color in itself is not a useful
attribute on which to categorize objects.
The lead article by Kowalski and Zimiles (2006) reports two experiments that required
2- and 3-year-olds to make inferences on the basis of color in the absence of a direct per-
ceptual match, and these authors compared performance on this conceptual task across
children grouped according to their ability to comprehend color terms. Results showed
that children’s ability to succeed on the conceptual task was closely linked to their compre-
hension of color terms. Importantly, results also showed that children who failed to com-
prehend color words also failed to abstract color conceptually but that comprehension of
only one color term was suYcient to succeed on the conceptual task. These results support
the proposal by Sandhofer and Smith (1999) that diYculty in representing color conceptu-
ally may initially inhibit the acquisition of color terms.
O’Hanlon and Roberson (2006, Experiment 3) also investigated the proposal by Soja
(1994) that attentional biases to shape rather than color in early vocabulary acquisition
may hinder the developmental acquisition of color terms. They attempted to overcome the
relative saliency of shape in the context of learning new color terms by boosting the per-
ceptual saliency of color while keeping shape constant. They found that increasing the per-
ceptual saliency of color facilitated new color term learning in 3-year-olds. Although
O’Hanlon and Roberson’s results provide support for Soja’s prediction, their results are
not necessarily incompatible with those of Kowalski and Zimiles (2006) because the chil-
dren in O’Hanlon and Roberson’s study had already acquired a sizable color vocabulary
(having on average eight color terms) prior to learning the new color terms. Thus, a con-
ceptual constraint may impede initial color term acquisition, but as Kowalski and Zimiles

1
Soja’s proposal is viewed as an attentional constraint by O’Hanlon and Roberson but is considered as a
linguistic constraint by Kowalski and Zimiles.
330 N.J. Pitchford / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333

illustrate, once a child acquires just one color term, the child may begin to conceptualize
color. Directing attention to the color domain in children who have a conceptualization of
color can then promote the learning of new color terms, as O’Hanlon and Roberson show.
In addition, O’Hanlon and Roberson investigated whether a linguistic constraint, based
on the principle of mutual exclusivity (Markman & Wachtel, 1988), also hinders the learn-
ing of color terms. This constraint operates through a child’s expectation that new words
refer only to novel objects (or properties of known objects) rather than properties (e.g.,
color) of novel objects. O’Hanlon and Roberson attempted to overcome this expectation
by explicitly contrasting color terms in three diVerent linguistic training contexts (semantic,
corrective, and referential) in groups of English 3-year-olds (Experiment 1) and Italian 3-
year-olds (Experiment 2). Results showed that explicit linguistic contrast (especially cor-
rective feedback) enhanced new color term learning for both groups and that children
found it easier to learn the new color terms that least violated the assumptions of mutual
exclusivity as predicted by their native language (although these diVered across languages).
These results suggest that children’s expectations about what new words refer to inXuences
how they acquire color terms and that this constraint appears to be stable across cultures.
Previous cross-cultural investigations by Roberson, DavidoV, Davies, and Shapiro
(2004) also found similarities in how children from vastly diVerent visual and linguistic
environments acquired color terms. Both English and African children struggled to learn
color terms, and both groups initially made perceptually based recognition errors (consis-
tent with Pitchford & Mullen, 2003). This suggests that even across diverse cultures, a simi-
lar perceptual organization of color exists prior to the acquisition of color terms, onto
which a culture-speciWc categorical organization of lexical representations must be
mapped. How closely the linguistic structure of a given language relates to the underlying
perceptual organization of color may inXuence the ease with which children acquire color
terms.
Other recent studies have also identiWed attentional and linguistic constraints on the
diVerential acquisition of basic color terms for English-speaking children. Pitchford and
Mullen (2002, 2005a) showed that children typically acquire the terms for brown and gray
later than they acquire the other nine basic color terms. Interestingly, the late acquisition of
the brown and gray terms appears to be inXuenced by both linguistic and attentional fac-
tors. Pitchford and Mullen (2005a) showed that adults used the terms brown and gray less
frequently than they used the six primary color terms2 in child-directed speech, illustrating
that the linguistic environment in which children are immersed inXuences when they
acquire particular terms.
Furthermore, Pitchford and Mullen (2005a) showed that of the 11 basic colors, brown
and gray were the two least preferred colors, suggesting a developmental link between
color preference and color term acquisition. A recent study by Davis, Pitchford, and Scerif
(2006) showed that color preference directly inXuences the cognitive processing of color in
adults given that preferred colors are attended to, memorized, and named more readily
than colors that are least preferred. Thus, it seems likely that children may Wrst name the
colors they like because their attention is drawn toward these colors over others in their

2
Interestingly, the three secondary terms (orange, pink, and purple) are also less frequent in child-directed
speech than are the six primary terms, yet children acquire these color terms at the same time as they acquire the
primary terms. This suggests that linguistic frequency alone cannot account for the dichotomous order of color
term acquisition shown by young children.
 N.J. Pitchford / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333 331

environment. Which colors children prefer may also be constrained by perceptual factors
given that infant studies have shown marked color preferences in 4-month-olds that
appear to be determined mostly by saturation and particular hues (i.e., blue) rather than
luminance (Pereverzeva & Teller, 2004). Preliminary investigations by Pitchford and Mul-
len (2005b) showed diVerences in saturation and particular hues also inXuenced color pref-
erence and the learning of nonbasic color terms in both young children and adults. This
suggests that the perceptual properties of color may inXuence color preference, which in
turn may aVect the cognitive processing of color. Hence, a perceptually based attentional
constraint may also operate on color term acquisition. Because this has been shown to
inXuence the learning of new color terms in both young children and adults, it indicates
that this constraint is stable across age, even though color preferences are modiWed by cul-
ture and gender during adulthood (Ling, Robinson, & Hurlbert, 2004).
Thus, several factors appear to inXuence the ease with which young children acquire
color terms relative to terms for common objects and the ease with which they acquire
diVerent color terms within their native language. It is likely that these constraints do not
operate in isolation but rather interact at diVerent stages of the acquisition process to
determine the precise nature by which color terms are acquired.

How speciWc are these constraints to the acquisition of color terms?

Historically, color terms were considered to comprise a special lexical class due to
their late appearance in vocabulary acquisition compared with terms referring to
familiar objects and because children typically produce color terms before understand-
ing their meanings. Here I consider recent studies that address the issue of speciWcity
Wrst by considering whether the acquisition of color terms is delayed relative to that of
other abstract property terms such as size and second by considering whether the ear-
lier production before comprehension of color terms is characteristic only of color
terms.
In one of the Wrst studies to compare young children’s acquisition of diVerent property
terms, Sandhofer and Smith (1999) contrasted 2-year-olds’ ability to learn six color terms
with their ability to learn two size terms. Their results showed that children had more diY-
culty in comprehending color terms than in comprehending size terms, thereby supporting
the notion that color terms have a unique lexical status. In contrast, Pitchford and Mullen
(2001) reported that 2- and 3-year-olds exhibited similar rates of acquisition for color
terms (red and green) as for size terms (big and small) and speed terms (fast and slow)
when the number of color terms to be learned was equated to the number of size and speed
terms and when the same contrastive learning context was applied to all words. They con-
cluded that the delayed acquisition of color terms is not speciWc to color terms but instead
reXects a more general delay in the acquisition of abstract property terms relative to com-
mon nouns.
A more recent study by Sandhofer and Smith (2001) compared the acquisition of artiW-
cial terms for values on novel dimensions in adults under diVerent learning contexts that
were based on the development of color and size terms in children. Results showed that the
learning trajectories for adults in the diVerent learning contexts were similar to those
observed for young children when learning color and size terms. These results illustrate
that factors that inXuence the acquisition of color (and size) terms during early childhood
also operate during later adulthood, indicating a degree of stability across age. Impor-
332 N.J. Pitchford / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333

tantly, however, the training regime, and not the meaning of the terms or the speciWc
dimensions, appeared to constrain the acquisition process. This is consistent with the
results of Pitchford and Mullen (2001), who showed that, under the same linguistic context,
color and size terms are acquired at similar rates. Thus, color and size terms do not appear
to diVer per se in their capacity to be learned, but the learning environment for these two
types of property terms typically diVers and can qualitatively inXuence the nature of the
process by which they are acquired.
One of the key features thought to characterize the developmental acquisition of color
terms is that production precedes comprehension. However, a recent study by Funnell,
Hughes, and Woodcock (2006) suggested that this might not be speciWc to color terms
because they report diVerential rates of acquisition for naming and knowing of common
objects by children between 3 years 6 months and 11 years 6 months of age. They com-
pared children’s ability to name pictures of objects with their ability to answer Wve probe
questions about a spoken object name. For children younger than 6 years 6 months, nam-
ing was better than knowledge of objects, but for children older than 6 years 6 months,
knowledge of objects exceeded naming. Thus, the earlier production of color terms prior to
their comprehension might not be speciWc to color terms after all but rather may typify an
early stage of lexical acquisition for most types of words.
On reXection, various factors seem to constrain the acquisition of color terms. Some
of these constraints appear to be stable over age and culture, and some appear to inXu-
ence the acquisition of other lexical terms, in particular abstract terms for other object
properties, suggesting that they are not speciWc to the acquisition of color terms. What
may diVerentiate color term acquisition from other lexical terms might be how these
constraints interact with one another and the learning environment, during diVerent
stages of the acquisition process, to make color term acquisition an eVortful and diYcult
linguistic task.

References

Carey, S. (1978). The child as a word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psy-
chological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davis, E. E., Pitchford, N. J., & Scerif, G. (2006). The inXuence of colour preference on colour cognition in adults.
Perception, 35, 421–422.
Funnell, E., Hughes, D., & Woodcock, J. (2006). Age of acquisition for naming and knowing: A new hypothesis.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 268–295.
Kowalski, K., & Zimiles, H. (2006). The relation between children’s conceptual functioning with color and color
term acquisition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 301–321.
Ling, Y., Robinson, L., & Hurlbert, A. (2004). Colour preference: Sex and culture. Perception, 33, 45.
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of
words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157.
O’Hanlon, C. G., & Roberson, D. (2006). Learning in context: Linguistic and attentional constraints on children’s
color term learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 275–300.
Pereverzeva, M., & Teller, D. Y. (2004). Infant color vision: InXuence of surround chromaticity on spontaneous
looking preferences. Visual Neuroscience, 21, 389–395.
Pitchford, N. J., & Mullen, K. T. (2001). Conceptualization of perceptual attributes: A special case for color? Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 289–314.
Pitchford, N. J., & Mullen, K. T. (2002). Is the acquisition of basic colour terms in young children constrained?
Perception, 31, 1349–1370.
Pitchford, N. J., & Mullen, K. T. (2003). The development of conceptual colour categories in preschool children:
InXuence of perceptual categorisation. Visual Cognition, 10, 51–77.
 N.J. Pitchford / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94 (2006) 328–333 333

Pitchford, N. J., & Mullen, K. T. (2005a). The role of perception, language, and preference in the developmental
acquisition of basic color terms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 275–302.
Pitchford, N., & Mullen, K. (2005b). InXuence of saturation on colour preference and colour naming. Perception,
34, 25.
Roberson, D., DavidoV, J., Davies, I. R. L., & Shapiro, L. R. (2004). The development of color categories in two
languages: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 554–571.
Sandhofer, C. M., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Learning color words involves learning a system of mappings. Develop-
mental Psychology, 35, 668–679.
Sandhofer, C. M., & Smith, L. B. (2001). Why children learn color and size words so diVerently: Evidence from
adults’ learning of artiWcial terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 600–620.
Soja, N. N. (1994). Young children’s concept of color and its relation to the acquisition of color words. Child
Development, 65, 918–937.