Rules, radical pragmatics and restrictions on regular polysemy

Journal of Semantics

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 485-512

  Rabagliati, Hugh ^a,b   Marcus, Gary F ^b   Pylkkänen, Liina ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 81155138808     PISSN: 01675133     EISSN: 14774593     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffr005     Document Type: Article

References (32)

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 69:135-78.
2. Ahn, W. K., S. A. Gelman, J. A. Amsterlaw, J. Hohenstein & C. W. Kalish. (2000), 'Causal status effect in children's categorization'. Cognition 76:B35-43.
3. Apresjan, J. (1974), 'Regular polysemy'. Linguistics 142:5-32.
4. Baayen, R. H. (2008), languageR: Data Sets and Functions with Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics. R package version 0.953. University of Alberta, Alberta, CA.
5. Borer, H. (2005), In Name Only. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
6. Clark, H. H. & R. J. Gerrig. (1983), 'Understanding old words with new meanings'. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22:591-608.
7. Copestake, A. & E. J. Briscoe (1995), 'Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension'. Journal of Semantics 12:15-67.
8. Dölling, J. (1995), 'Ontological domains, semantic sorts, and systematic ambiguity'. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43:785-807.
9. Fauconnier, G. (1985), Mental Spaces. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
10. Gelman, A. & J. Hill (2007), Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/ Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press. New York.
11. Gibbs, R., D. Beitel, M. Harrington & P. Sanders. (1994), 'Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: bodily experience as motivation for polysemy'. Journal of Semantics, 11:231.
12. Gureckis, T. M. (2009), PyPsyExp System. New York University. New York (http://smash.psych.nyu.edu/pypsyexp/). Last accessed: 04/06/2011.
13. Kamei, S.-I. & T. Wakao (1992), Metonymy: reassessment, survey of acceptability, and its treatment in a machine translation system. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
14. Klein, D. E. & G. L. Murphy (2001), 'The representation of polysemous words'. Journal of Memory and Language 45:259-82.
15. Klein, D. E. & G. L. Murphy (2002), 'Paper has been my ruin: conceptual relations of polysemous senses'. Journal of Memory and Language 47:548-70.
16. Murphy, G. L. (1997), Polysemy and the creation of novel word meanings'. In T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, and J. Vaid (eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. APA. Washington, DC. 235-65.
17. Murphy,G. L.&D.L.Medin. (1985), 'The role of theories in conceptual coherence'. Psychological Review 92:289-316.
18. Nunberg, G. (1979), 'The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy'. Linguistics and Philosophy 3:143-84.
19. Nunberg, G. (1995), 'Transfers of meaning'. Journal of Semantics 12:109-32.
20. Ostler, N & B. Atkins (1992), 'Predictable meaning shift: some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules'. Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation 627:87-100.
21. Papafragou, A. (1996), 'On metonymy'. Lingua 99:169-95.
22. Pustejovsky, J. (1995), The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
23. Rabagliati, H., G. F. Marcus & L. Pylkkänen. (2010), 'Shifting senses in lexical semantic development'. Cognition 117:17-37.
24. Rehder, B. (2003), 'Categorization as causal reasoning'. Cognitive Science 27:709-48.
25. Rehder, B. & R.Hastie. (2004), 'Category coherence and category-based property induction'. Cognition 91:113-53.
26. Rehder, B. & S. Kim. (2006), 'How causal knowledge affects classification: a generative theory of categorization'. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32:659-83.
27. Rosch, E. & C. Mervis. (1975), 'Family resemblance: studies in the internal structure of categories'. Cognitive Psychology 7:573-605.
28. Schü tze, H. (1997), 'Ambiguity Resolution in Language Learning'. CSLI Publications. Stanford, CA.
29. Sloman, S., Love, B., & Ahn, W. (1998), 'Feature centrality and conceptual coherence'. Cognitive Science 22: 189-228.
30. Strigin, A. (1998), 'Lexical rules as hypotheses generators'. Journal of Semantics 15:163.
31. Wilson, D. (2003), 'Relevance and lexical pragmatics'. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15:273-92.
32. Zipf, G. K. (1945), 'The meaningfrequency relationship of words'. Journal of General Psychology 33:251-56.