Essentializing Inferences

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
K. Ritchie
{"title":"Essentializing Inferences","authors":"K. Ritchie","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/8mchf","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Predicate nominals (e.g., ‘is a female’) seem to label or categorize their subjects, while their predicate adjective correlates (e.g, ‘is female’) merely attribute a property. Further, predicate nominals elicit essentializing inferential judgments about inductive potential as well as stable explanatory membership. Semantic data and research from developmental and cognitive psychology support that this distinction is robust and productive. I argue that while the difference between predicate nominals and predicate adjectives is elided by standard semantic theories, it ought not be. I then develop and defend a psychologically motivated semantic account that takes predicate nominals to involve attributing kind membership and to trigger a presupposition that underpins our essentialist judgments.","PeriodicalId":51472,"journal":{"name":"Mind & Language","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mind & Language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8mchf","RegionNum":3,"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: 3

Abstract

Predicate nominals (e.g., ‘is a female’) seem to label or categorize their subjects, while their predicate adjective correlates (e.g, ‘is female’) merely attribute a property. Further, predicate nominals elicit essentializing inferential judgments about inductive potential as well as stable explanatory membership. Semantic data and research from developmental and cognitive psychology support that this distinction is robust and productive. I argue that while the difference between predicate nominals and predicate adjectives is elided by standard semantic theories, it ought not be. I then develop and defend a psychologically motivated semantic account that takes predicate nominals to involve attributing kind membership and to trigger a presupposition that underpins our essentialist judgments.
所谓推断
谓语主词(例如“is a female”)似乎是对其主语进行标记或分类,而其谓语-形容词相关词(例如,“is female(是女性)”)只是赋予一个属性。此外,谓语主格引发了关于归纳势的本质化推理判断以及稳定的解释隶属度。语义数据和来自发展和认知心理学的研究支持这种区别是有力的和富有成效的。我认为,虽然标准语义理论忽略了谓语主词和谓语形容词之间的区别,但它不应该被忽略。然后,我发展并捍卫了一种基于心理动机的语义解释,认为谓语主词涉及归因种类成员关系,并触发了一个支撑我们本质主义判断的预设。
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
Mind & Language
Mind & Language Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
×
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