Assumptions about Word Meaning: Individuation and Basic-Level Kinds |
| |
| Authors: | D Geoffrey Hall Sandra R Waxman |
| |
| Institution: | M.R.C. Cognitive Development Unit, London;Northwestern University |
| |
| Abstract: | In 2 experiments, 3 1/2-year-old children interpreted a novel count noun (e.g., "This is a murvil") applied to an unfamiliar stuffed animal as referring to a basic-level kind, rather than to a kind that individuates its members by type of situation (context or life-phase). For example, children made interpretations akin to PERSON (a basic-level kind) rather than PASSENGER (a context-restricted kind), and DOG (a basic-level kind) rather than PUPPY (a life-phase-restricted kind). These experiments also document the role of object familiarity (previous knowledge of a basic-level count noun for the animal) and explicit information (about the relevance of the animal's situation) in the learning of count nouns for situation-restricted kinds. We note that children readily learn the meanings of basic-level count nouns through ostensive definitions (e.g., "This is an X"), although ostensive definitions do not distinguish basic-level kinds from situation-restricted kinds. Therefore, we suggest that children make an implicit assumption that a count noun applied to an unfamiliar solid object refers to a basic-level kind of object, and not to a kind that individuates its members by type of situation. We illustrate the importance of this assumption by showing how it bears directly on individuation, and therefore, on quantification (e.g., counting). |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
