Reference points in linguistic construal: Scalar adjectives revisited*

Tribushinina, Elena

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.2009.01161.x

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The general notion of reference points has also been introduced in linguistic models of the interpretation of scalar adjectives (Tribushinina, 2009), which are interpreted in a context-sensitive manner. Scalar adjectives such as large, warm, and average refer to positions along a continuous dimension of magnitude; they are interpreted not as absolute values, but rather in relation to the noun category being modified (Partee, 1995).…”

Section: Reference Points In Magnitude Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

Chen

Holyoak

2014

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tHumans and other primates are able to make relative magnitude comparisons, both with perceptual stimuli and with symbolic inputs that convey magnitude information. Although numerous models of magnitude comparison have been proposed, the basic question of how symbolic magnitudes (e.g., size or intelligence of animals) are derived and represented in memory has received little attention. We argue that symbolic magnitudes often will not correspond directly to elementary features of individual concepts. Rather, magnitudes may be formed in working memory based on computations over more basic features stored in long-term memory. We present a model of how magnitudes can be acquired and compared based on BARTlet, a representationally simpler version of Bayesian Analogy with Relational Transformations (BART; Lu, Chen, & Holyoak, 2012). BARTlet operates on distributions of magnitude variables created by applying dimension-specific weights (learned with the aid of empirical priors derived from pre-categorical comparisons) to more primitive features of objects. The resulting magnitude distributions, formed and maintained in working memory, are sensitive to contextual influences such as the range of stimuli and polarity of the question. By incorporating psychological reference points that control the precision of magnitudes in working memory and applying the tools of signal detection theory, BARTlet is able to account for a wide range of empirical phenomena involving magnitude comparisons, including the symbolic distance effect and the semantic congruity effect. We discuss the role of reference points in cognitive and social decision-making, and implications for the evolution of relational representations.

show abstract

Section: Reference Points In Magnitude Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

Chen

Holyoak

2014

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boundedness has also been discussed relative to adjectival structures (e.g. Paradis 2000, 2001, 2005; Paradis & Willners 2013; Tribushinina 2008, 2009, 2011). I refer to boundary rather than boundedness to indicate the profiling of boundaries for an entity because boundedness can be applied more broadly to indicate varying degrees of delimitation for entities.…”

Section: Lexical Meaning As Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2007, 2008a, 2008b). Bit has also been treated in connection with adjectives (Tribushinina 2008, 2009, 2011) and it has been a more central focus of additional studies (Goddard 2006; Hartman 2013; Claridge & Kytö 2014). Some of these take a diachronic perspective and others are more synchronically oriented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meaning potential perspective on lexical meaning: the case ofbit

Hartman¹

2015

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a description of a particular lexical item, the English word bit, from a meaning potential perspective making use of the framework lexical meaning as ontologies and construals (LOC). The lexical semantics for bit is described not in terms of meanings per se, but rather in terms of potential for cueing conceptual structures of varying schematicity, put to use through a range of cognitive processes, or construals. The article concludes that some conceptual structures are quite fundamental to bit’s use and that their construal is highly flexible and contextually sensitive. The semantic structures evoked by bit are realized through particular communicative and discursive settings, and these semantic structures provide the raw material for all its situated meanings in response to communicative demands. Ultimately, a meaning potential perspective, in particular the model for describing and explaining lexical meaning adopted in this article, facilitates a rich and explicatory description of bit, both as regards its fundamental structures and their construal in attested language use.

show abstract

“…Historically, researchers have primarily focused on the development of other open word classes such as nouns and verbs (see He & Arunachalam, 2017, for a review). Although more attention has been devoted to adjective processing and development in recent years (e.g., Arunachalam, 2016;Blackwell, 2005;Fernald et al, 2010;Huang & Snedeker, 2013;2000;Murphy & Jones, 2008;Ninio, 2004;Ramscar Yarlett, Dye, Denny, & Thorpe, 2010;Ricks & Alt, 2016;Sandhofer & Smith, 2007;Sekerina & Trueswell, 2012;Syrett, Kennedy, & Lidz, 2010;Thorpe & Fernald, 2006;Tribushinina, 2009Tribushinina, , 2011aTribushinina, , 2011bTribushinina, , 2012Tribushinina, , 2013aTribushinina et al, 2013Tribushinina et al, , 2014Tribushinina & Mak, 2016;Tribushinina, Mak, Dubinkina, & Mak, 2018), more research is needed to further the understanding of how adjectives occur in the input and how their various forms are processed. This is vital for fully understanding the challenges they bring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjective forms and functions in British English child-directed speech

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjectives are essential for describing and differentiating concepts. However, they have a protracted development relative to other word classes. Here we measure three- and four-year-olds’ exposure to adjectives across a range of interactive and socioeconomic contexts to: (i) measure the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic variability of adjectives in child-directed speech (CDS); and (ii) investigate how features of the input might scaffold adjective acquisition. In our novel corpus of UK English, adjectives occurred more frequently in prenominal than in postnominal (predicative) syntactic frames, though postnominal frames were more frequent for less-familiar adjectives. They occurred much more frequently with a descriptive than a contrastive function, especially for less-familiar adjectives. Our findings present a partial mismatch between the forms of adjectives found in real-world CDS and those forms that have been shown to be more useful for learning. We discuss implications for models of adjective acquisition and for clinical practice.

show abstract

Reference points in linguistic construal: Scalar adjectives revisited*

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

A meaning potential perspective on lexical meaning: the case ofbit

Adjective forms and functions in British English child-directed speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About