Syntactic Biases in Intentionality Judgments

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 601-606

  Strickland, Brent ^a   Fischer, Matt C ^b   Peyroux, Elodie ^c   Keil, Frank ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BIOLA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LUMIÈRE LYON 2   (France)

Author keywords

Dual Systems; Intentionality Bias; Thematic Roles; Theory of Mind

Indexed keywords

DIRECT OBJECTS; DUAL SYSTEM; HIGH-LEVEL COGNITION; INTENTIONALITY; INTENTIONALITY BIAS; LINGUISTIC THEORY; SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE; THEMATIC ROLE; THEORY OF MINDS;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 84890914571     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Apperly, I.A. & Butterfill, S.A, (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review.116(4), 953-970.
2. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Carlson, G. and M. Tanenhaus (1988). Thematic Roles and Language Comprehension. In W. Wilkins, (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations, Academic Press, pp. 263-89.
4. Childers, J. B., & Echols, C. H. (2004). Two ½ year-old children use animacy and syntax to learn a new noun. Infancy, 5, 109-125.
5. Cohen, A.S. & German, T.C. (2009). Encoding of others’ beliefs without overt instruction. Cognition, 111, 356-363.
6. Dowty D.R (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67: 547-619.
7. Fillmore, C. (1968). The Case for Case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory. Bach. E. and Harms, R. (eds.) pp. 1-90.
8. Gao, T., Newman, G. E., & Scholl, B. J. (2009). The psychophysics of chasing: A case study in the perception of animacy. Cognitive Psychology, 59(2), 154 - 179.
9. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165-193.
10. Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., and Ostrin, R., (1996) 'Similar' and similar concepts, Cognition 58, 321-376.
11. Hamlin, J.K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450, 557-559.
12. Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiriy 18, 369-412.
13. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Newman, G.E., Keil, F.C., Kuhlmeier, V., & Wynn, K. (2010). Sensitivity to Design: Early Understandings of the Link between Agents and Order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 17140-17145.
15. Rosset, E. (2008). It’s no accident: Our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition, 108 , 771–780.
16. Saxe, R. (2009). Theory of Mind (Neural Basis). Encyclopedia of Consciousness.
17. Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890.