Search

When considering the impact of stigmatization on society, we tend to think of one aspect of stigmatization while ignoring another. Drawing from historical and fictional cases, I argue that acts of stigmatization can be direct or indirect. Acts of direct stigmatization are acts taken by individuals or groups against an entity, while acts of indirect stigmatization are the specific acts taken by potential targets of stigmatization to prevent themselves from becoming victims of direct stigmatization. If we want a full understanding of the impact that stigmatization has on society, then we need to consider the impact of both direct and indirect acts of stigmatization.

This paper explores young children’s and parents’ use of color words and animal names in two published studies. The aim is to compare the ranges and kinds of these words in parentchild interaction and to consider the implications of these findings for our understanding of early lexical development. Color term data were drawn from the Gleason corpus in CHILDES: 12 boys and 12 girls ranging in age from 25-62 months, and their parents. Results showed that parents used and emphasized only the same 10 most basic colors, with many teaching episodes. Parents’ most frequent terms, red, blue, and green were also children’s most frequent terms and are the ones acquired earliest according to MacArthur Bates lexical norms. In the second study CLAN programs were used to identify animal names in corpora from a variety of families in CHILDES, with 44 children ranging in age from 1;6-6;2. Children and parents produced a remarkable number and range of animal terms, with individual preschoolers naming as many as 96 different, often rare, animals, such as crocodile and pelican. Parents and children thus attend to the same limited set of basic color terms. By contrast, biophilia, our shared human love of the living world is reflected in children’s extensive animal lexicon.