Semantic grounding in models of analogy: An enviromental approach

Cognitive Science

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 41-71

  Ramscar, Michael ^a,b   Yarlett, Daniel ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Implications; Retrieval; Semantics

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037234924     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00113-1     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ahn, W. K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69, 135-178.
2. Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. J. A. (in preparation). Co-occurrence and comparison.
3. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Bahavior, 11, 717-726.
4. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modeling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177-210.
5. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in children. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
7. Clement, C. A., & Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15, 89-132.
8. Clement, C. A., Mawby, R., & Giles, D. E. (1994). The effects of manifest relational similarity on analog retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 396-420.
9. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. E. Lees, trans.). Psychological monographs, 58 (Chapter VII) (5, Whole No. 270).
10. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
11. Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.
12. Fodor, J. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. RePresentations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1994). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
14. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., Markman, A. B., & Ferguson, R. W. (1998). Analogy just looks like high level perception. Why a domain-general approach to analogical mapping is right. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 10, 231-257.
15. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
16. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M., & Forbus, K. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524-575.
17. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331-355.
18. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1985). Surface information loss in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 324-363.
19. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
20. Glucksberg, S., & Weisberg, R. W. (1966). Verbal behavior and problem solving: Some effects of labeling in a functional fixedness problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 659-664.
21. Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
22. Halford, G. S.,Wilson,W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803-864.
23. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
24. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
26. Keane, M. T. (1996). On adaptation in analogy: Tests of pragmatic-importance and adaptability in analogical problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 1062-1085.
27. Keane, M. T. (1997). What makes an analogy difficult?: The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 23, 946-967.
28. Keane, M. T., Ledgeway, T., & Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 18, 387-438.
29. Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 500-526.
30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
32. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
33. Laurence, S., & Margiolis, E. (1999). In S. Laurence & E. Margiolis (Eds.), Concepts and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 660-665). Pittsburgh, PA: Erlbaum.
35. Markman, A. B. (in press). Structural alignment, similarity, and the internal structure of category representations. In U. Hahn & M. J. A. Ramscar (Eds.), Similarity and categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
37. Medin, D., Goldstone, R., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278.
38. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processing and decision processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(1), 1-19.
39. Ramscar, M. J. A., & Hahn, U. (1998, August). What family resemblances are not: The continuing relevance of Wittgenstein to the study of concepts and categories. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 865-870). Madison-Wisconsin, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Ramscar, M. J. A., & Pain, H. G. (1996). Can a real distinction be made between cognitive theories of analogy and categorisation? In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 346-351). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 425-469.
42. Sachs, J. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437-444.
43. Simons, D. J. (Ed.). (2000). Change blindness and visual memory: A special issue. Visual cognition. Brighton: Psychology Press.
44. Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Learning categories composed of varying instances: The effect of classification, inference, and structural alignment. Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 64-78.
45. Yarlett, D. G., & Ramscar,M. J. A. (2000). Structure-mapping theory and lexico-semantic information. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 571-576). University of Pennsylvania.