Pragmatic inferencing influences the referential status of all potential referents in word learning

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Felix Hao Wang
{"title":"Pragmatic inferencing influences the referential status of all potential referents in word learning","authors":"Felix Hao Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>After observing a word uttered in the presence of multiple objects, how do learners represent these potential referents? Given a select object from a learning scenario for a novel word, all theories predict that this referent is to be remembered as the referent, but diverge on how the co-present objects are represented. Theory-building is also hampered by the fact that different studies used different stimuli, in addition to whether the learning instances contained referential information on which the referent is intended. Here, we report four experiments with approximately 100 adult participants in each, manipulating both factors. We find that, when the potential referents are known conceptually, the referential status of these objects is influenced by whether the learning instances contain referential information: With information guiding referential selection, learners perform mutual exclusivity and reject the co-occurring objects as potential referents; without this information, learners represent all co-occurring objects as a potential referent. However, when the potential referents are unfamiliar objects, even with the explicit instruction on which object is the intended referent, learners represent both objects as potential referents, as both objects can plausibly belong to the same category that the word refers to. This set of results can be explained by a pragmatic inference process where learners either believe all potential referents belong to different categories and are thus mutually exclusive, or that all potential referents plausibly belong to the same category referred to by the same word. We discuss the implication of these results, which move away from a debate about the sheer number of referents and onto the more mechanistic question of how learners represent referents in word learning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"139 ","pages":"Article 104555"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000585","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After observing a word uttered in the presence of multiple objects, how do learners represent these potential referents? Given a select object from a learning scenario for a novel word, all theories predict that this referent is to be remembered as the referent, but diverge on how the co-present objects are represented. Theory-building is also hampered by the fact that different studies used different stimuli, in addition to whether the learning instances contained referential information on which the referent is intended. Here, we report four experiments with approximately 100 adult participants in each, manipulating both factors. We find that, when the potential referents are known conceptually, the referential status of these objects is influenced by whether the learning instances contain referential information: With information guiding referential selection, learners perform mutual exclusivity and reject the co-occurring objects as potential referents; without this information, learners represent all co-occurring objects as a potential referent. However, when the potential referents are unfamiliar objects, even with the explicit instruction on which object is the intended referent, learners represent both objects as potential referents, as both objects can plausibly belong to the same category that the word refers to. This set of results can be explained by a pragmatic inference process where learners either believe all potential referents belong to different categories and are thus mutually exclusive, or that all potential referents plausibly belong to the same category referred to by the same word. We discuss the implication of these results, which move away from a debate about the sheer number of referents and onto the more mechanistic question of how learners represent referents in word learning.

语用推理影响词汇学习中所有潜在参照物的指代地位
在观察到一个单词是在有多个物体存在的情况下说出的之后,学习者是如何表征这些潜在的指代物的呢?如果从一个新词的学习情景中选择一个对象,所有理论都预测这个指代物会被记忆为指代物,但在如何表征共同出现的对象方面却存在分歧。此外,不同的研究使用了不同的刺激物,以及学习实例是否包含指代信息,这些都阻碍了理论的建立。在此,我们报告了四项实验,每项实验都有大约 100 名成年参与者参加,并对这两个因素进行了操作。我们发现,当潜在参照物在概念上已知时,这些对象的参照地位会受到学习实例是否包含参照信息的影响:在有信息指导指代选择的情况下,学习者会进行互斥,拒绝将共同出现的对象作为潜在指代;而在没有信息的情况下,学习者会将所有共同出现的对象作为潜在指代。然而,当潜在的参照物是陌生的物体时,即使有明确的指示告诉学习者哪个物体是潜在的参照物,学习者还是会把这两个物体都作为潜在的参照物,因为这两个物体都有可能属于单词所指的同一类别。这组结果可以用语用推理过程来解释,在这个过程中,学习者要么认为所有潜在的指称都属于不同的类别,因此是相互排斥的,要么认为所有潜在的指称都可能属于同一个词所指的同一个类别。我们将讨论这些结果的含义,这些结果摆脱了关于参照物数量的争论,转而讨论学习者在词语学习中如何表征参照物这一更具机制性的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信