On the pragmatics of contrast

Clark, Eve V.

doi:10.1017/s0305000900013842

Cited by 248 publications

(223 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

213

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the asymmetric condition of Experiment 3, concepts were essentially labeled "Concept A" and "Not Concept A," whereas in the symmetric condition, the two concepts were labeled "Concept A" and "Concept 8." Within the asymmetric condition, the concept labeled "Not Concept A" is predicted to be more influenced by "Concept A" than the concept labeled "Concept A" is influenced by "Not Concept A" (Clark, 1990). The concept that has a label that refers to another concept is predicted to be highly influenced by the referenced concept.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Isolated and interrelated concepts

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A continuum between purely isolated and purely interrelated concepts is described. Along this continuum, a concept is interrelated to the extent that it is influenced by other concepts. Methods for manipulating and identifying a concept's degree of interrelatedness are introduced. Relatively isolated concepts can be empirically identified by a relatively large use of nondiagnostic features, and by better categorization performance for a concept's prototype than for a caricature of the concept. Relatively interrelated concepts can be identified by minimal use of nondiagnostic features, and by better categorization performance for a caricature than for a prototype. Aconcept is likely to be relatively isolated when subjects are instructed to create images for their concepts rather than fmd discriminating features, when concepts are given unrelated labels, and when the categories that are displayed alternate rarely between trials. The entire set of manipulations and measurements supports a graded distinction between isolated and interrelated concepts. The distinction is applied to current models of category learning, and a connectionist framework for interpreting the empirical results is presented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Isolated and interrelated concepts

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One concept can be labeled "Category A," whereas another concept is labeled "not Category A." In this case, the concept labeled "not Category A" is predicted to be more influenced by "Category A" than vice versa (Clark, 1990). The concept that has a label that refers to another concept is predicted to be highly influenced by the referenced concept.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts are interrelatedto the extent that the characterizationof each concept is influenced by the other concepts, and are isolated to the extent that the characterization of one concept is independent of other concepts. The relative categorization accuracy of the prototype and caricature of a concept can be used as a measure of concept interrelatedness. The prototype is the central tendency of a concept, whereas a caricature deviates from the concept's central tendency in the direction opposite the central tendency of other acquired concepts. The prototype is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is relatively independent of other concepts, but the caricature is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is highly related to other concepts. Support for these predictions comes from manipulations of the labels given to simultaneously acquired concepts (Experiment 1) and of the order of categories during learning (Experiment 2).

show abstract

“…In the typical Disambiguation task the speaker does not use the conventional form for the familiar object, and thus is assumed to have some contrasting meaning in mind. However, most meaning differences also involve differences in perspective: differences in denotation, dialect, or register, for example, when referring to the same object all constitute differences in perspective (Clark, 1990).…”

Section: Fit With the Sociopragmatic Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive developments in word learning: Mutual exclusivity and theory of mind

Gollek

Doherty

2016

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the flexibility with which children can use pragmatic information to determine word reference. Extensive previous research shows that children choose an unfamiliar object as referent of a novel name: the disambiguation effect. We added a pragmatic cue indirectly indicating a familiar object as intended referent. In three experiments, preschool children's ability to take this cue into account was specifically associated with false belief understanding and the ability to produce familiar alternative names (e.g., rabbit, animal) for a given referent. The association was predicted by the hypothesis that all three tasks require an understanding of perspective (linguistic or mental).The findings indicate that perspectival understanding is required to take into account indirect pragmatic information to suspend the disambiguation effect. Implications for lexical principles and socio-pragmatic theories of word learning are discussed.Keywords: word learning, mutual exclusivity bias, disambiguation effect, theory of mind, metacognition METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN WORD LEARNING 4 Metacognitive developments in word learning:Mutual Exclusivity and theory of mind A frequent observation, both in word learning research and in everyday life, is that young children appear to assume that each object kind has only one name. This tendency can be demonstrated experimentally using what is known as the disambiguation paradigm (e.g., Markman & Wachtel, 1988;Merriman & Bowman, 1989). In the presence of a familiar nameable object and an unfamiliar object children are asked to pick the referent of a novel name. For example, when shown a familiar apple, and an unfamiliar whisk, and asked to pick the "hinkle", children typically choose the novel object. This disambiguation effect is very robust and has been extensively used in research. It can be demonstrated from late infancy (e.g., Halberda, 2003;Markman, Wasow, & Hansen, 2003). It also constitutes a test case for differing theories about the nature of word learning, and about the relationship between word learning and metacognitive development. Determining the underlying cause of disambiguation is of broad theoretical importance.There are three general explanations of the phenomenon. (Others have proposed combinations of these explanations or hybrid accounts, e.g., Hollich, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2000a, but we focus on these three for brevity.) The phenomenon is frequently identified as the 'Mutual Exclusivity bias ' (e.g., Markman, 1989;Merriman & Bowman, 1989), based on the idea that children assume word extensions to be mutually exclusive.Other lexical principles accounts have been proposed in which children prefer to map novel names to nameless categories (N3C; Golinkoff, Mervis, & Hirsh-Pasek, 1994) or vice versa (bias to fill lexical gaps, Merriman & Bowman, 1989). Unlike the Mutual Exclusivity bias, neither account predicts difficulty mapping novel names to nameable categories if other options are not apparent. METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN WORD...

show abstract

On the pragmatics of contrast

Cited by 248 publications

References 24 publications

Isolated and interrelated concepts

Isolated and interrelated concepts

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

Metacognitive developments in word learning: Mutual exclusivity and theory of mind

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About