Perspectives, compositionality and complex concepts

The Compositionality of Meaning and Content: Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 179-201

  Braisby, Nick ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957107157     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1515/9783110332865.179     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Barwise, J. (1985). The situation in logic II: Conditionals and conditional information (Tech. Rep. No. CSLI 85 21). Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
2. Barwise, J. (1989). Information and circumstance. In The situation in logic (Vol. 17, pp. 137-154). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
4. Barwise, J., & Seligman, J. (1997). Information flow: the logic of distributed systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Braisby, N. (1990). Situating word meaning. In R. Cooper, K. Mukai, & J. Perry (Eds.), Situation theory and its applications (Vol. I, pp. 315-341). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
6. Braisby, N. (1993). Stable concepts and context-sensitive classification. Irish Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 426-441.
7. Braisby, N. (1998). Compositionality and the modeling of complex concepts. Minds and Machines, 8, 479-508.
8. Braisby, N., & Franks, B. (1997). What does word use tell us about conceptual content. Psychology of Language and Communication, 1(2), 5-16.
9. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley.
10. Cavedon, L., Blackburn, P., Braisby, N., & Shimojima, A. (Eds.). (2000). Language, logic and computation (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
11. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1981). Context for comprehension. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 9, pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
14. Dupré, J. (2002). Humans and other animals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. Fodor, J. A. (1994). Concepts: A pot-boiler. Cognition, 50, 95-113.
16. Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. (2002). The compositionality papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Franks, B. (1995). Sense generation: a ‘quasi-classical’ approach to concepts and concept combination. Cognitive Science, 19(4), 441-505.
18. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 8-11.
19. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the nonobvious. Cognition, 38, 213-244.
20. Hampton, J. A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representations. In J. v. Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67-95). London: Academic Press.
21. Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 129-191.
22. Kay, P., & Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in english. In Sixth annual meeting of the california linguistics association. San Diego, CA.
23. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). Alcove: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44.
24. Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. London: Academic Press.
25. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (Eds.). (1999). Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cognition, 6, 462-472.
27. Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: CUP.
28. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469-1481.
29. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
30. Mervis, C. B., Catlin, J., & Rosch, E. (1976). Relationships among goodnessof- example, category norms, and word frequency. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 283-284.
31. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529-562.
32. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
34. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded categorization. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
35. Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts’. Cognition, 9, 35-58.
36. Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 1-20.
37. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
38. Rosch, E., Simpson, C., & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 491-502.
39. Shoben, E. J. (1991). Predicating and non-predicating combinations. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 117-135). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.