On prototypes as defaults (Comment on Connolly, Fodor, Gleitman and Gleitman, 2007)

Cognition

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 913-923

  Jönsson, Martin L ^a   Hampton, James A ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; STEREOTYPY;

EID: 37249088891     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.009     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Cohen B., and Murphy G.L. Models of concepts. Cognitive Science 8 (1984) 27-58
2. Connolly A.C., Fodor J.A., Gleitman L.R., and Gleitman H. Why stereotypes don't even make good defaults. Cognition 103 (2007) 1-22
3. Costello F., and Keane M.T. Efficient creativity: constraints on conceptual combination. Cognitive Science 24 (2000) 299-349
4. Fodor J.A. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong (1998), Clarendon Press, Oxford
5. Fodor J.A., and Lepore E. The pet fish and the red herring: Why concepts still can't be prototypes. Cognition 58 (1996) 243-276
6. Fodor J.A., and Lepore E. The compositionality papers (2002), Clarendon Press, Oxford
7. Hampton J.A. Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition 15 (1987) 55-71
8. Hampton J.A. Overextension of conjunctive concepts: evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14 (1988) 12-32
9. Hampton, J. A., & Jönsson, M. L. (in press). Typicality and compositionality: The logic of combining vague concepts. In W. Hinzen, M. Werning, & E. Machery (Eds.), Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Jönsson M.L., and Hampton J.A. The inverse conjunction fallacy. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (2006) 317-334
11. Jönsson, M. L., & Hampton, J. A. (2007). The modifier effect in within-category induction: Default inheritance in complex noun phrases. City University, London. (submitted for publication).
12. McElree B., Murphy G.L., and Ochoa T. Time-course of retrieving conceptual information: A speed-accuracy tradeoff study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13 (2006) 848-853
13. Murphy G.L. Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science 12 (1988) 529-562
14. Sloman S.A., Love B.C., and Ahn W.K. Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science 22 (1998) 189-228
15. Smith E.E., Osherson D.N., Rips L.J., and Keane M. Combining prototypes: a selective modification model. Cognitive Science 12 (1988) 485-527
16. Springer K., and Murphy G.L. Feature availability in conceptual combination. Psychological Science 3 (1992) 111-117
17. Storms G., Ruts W., and Vandenbroucke A. Dominance, overextensions, and the conjunction effect in different syntactic phrasings of concept conjunctions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 10 (1998) 337-372
18. Thagard P. Coherent and creative conceptual combinations. In: Ward T.B., Smith S.M., and Viad J. (Eds). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (1997), American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. 129-141
19. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90 (1983) 293-315
20. Wisniewski E.J. When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4 (1997) 167-183