Susan Carey
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195367638
- eISBN:
- 9780199867349
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.003.0007
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Developmental Psychology
This chapter touches on some relations between core cognition and language. It distinguishes the strong linguistic continuity hypothesis that emerges from the language-acquisition literature with two ...
More
This chapter touches on some relations between core cognition and language. It distinguishes the strong linguistic continuity hypothesis that emerges from the language-acquisition literature with two broad ways language learning might affect thought called “weak linguistic influence” and “Quinian linguistic determinism”, respectively. At issue is the continuity thesis mentioned in Chapter 1: the thesis that the resources needed to express all concepts humans can represent are available throughout development, even at the beginning. Two case studies—representations of quantifiers and representations of object kind sortals—illustrate what is at stake and how the arguments go. The chapter reviews evidence for an influence of language learning on nonlinguistic representations in each of these cases, and concludes with arguments that these particular cases reflect weak linguistic influences, at most, and not Quinian linguistic determinism.Less
This chapter touches on some relations between core cognition and language. It distinguishes the strong linguistic continuity hypothesis that emerges from the language-acquisition literature with two broad ways language learning might affect thought called “weak linguistic influence” and “Quinian linguistic determinism”, respectively. At issue is the continuity thesis mentioned in Chapter 1: the thesis that the resources needed to express all concepts humans can represent are available throughout development, even at the beginning. Two case studies—representations of quantifiers and representations of object kind sortals—illustrate what is at stake and how the arguments go. The chapter reviews evidence for an influence of language learning on nonlinguistic representations in each of these cases, and concludes with arguments that these particular cases reflect weak linguistic influences, at most, and not Quinian linguistic determinism.
Hagit Borer
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199263905
- eISBN:
- 9780191718182
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.003.0004
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
This chapter turns to the motivation for one more functional open value within the nominal domain: Classifier Phrase (CLmax), headed by the open value DIV (div. meaning ‘division’). It is argued that ...
More
This chapter turns to the motivation for one more functional open value within the nominal domain: Classifier Phrase (CLmax), headed by the open value DIV (div. meaning ‘division’). It is argued that CLmax is responsible for the generation of mass vs. count structures and is assigned range, in English, both by plural inflection and by the indefinite article a. #P, on the other hand, is the merger location of all other determiners, including strong determiners, weak determiners, cardinals, and the definite article as well. The chapter looks at the mass-count distinction and the singular-plural distinction in a number of languages, particularly English and Chinese. It also discusses the affinity between bare mass nouns and bare plurals when contrasted with singulars, and provides for a typology of determiners across languages. As in the case of proper vs. common names, it is argued that no lexical listing is required to distinguish mass nouns from count nouns, and that, as in the case of proper/common names, the distinction is fundamentally structural, rather than lexico-semantic.Less
This chapter turns to the motivation for one more functional open value within the nominal domain: Classifier Phrase (CLmax), headed by the open value DIV (div. meaning ‘division’). It is argued that CLmax is responsible for the generation of mass vs. count structures and is assigned range, in English, both by plural inflection and by the indefinite article a. #P, on the other hand, is the merger location of all other determiners, including strong determiners, weak determiners, cardinals, and the definite article as well. The chapter looks at the mass-count distinction and the singular-plural distinction in a number of languages, particularly English and Chinese. It also discusses the affinity between bare mass nouns and bare plurals when contrasted with singulars, and provides for a typology of determiners across languages. As in the case of proper vs. common names, it is argued that no lexical listing is required to distinguish mass nouns from count nouns, and that, as in the case of proper/common names, the distinction is fundamentally structural, rather than lexico-semantic.
