Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances

Psychological Bulletin

Volumn 141, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 786-811

  Rips, Lance J ^a   Hespos, Susan J ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Count nouns; Mass nouns; Object concepts; Substance concepts

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFANT; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSICAL PHENOMENA; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ADULT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; INFANT; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PHYSICAL PHENOMENA;

EID: 84934857812     PISSN: 00332909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000011     Document Type: Article

References (149)

1. Aristotle. (1994). Metaphysics. Books Z and H (D. Bostock, Trans. & Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
2. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Identity through time. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Time and cause (pp. 67-78). Dordrecht, Germany: Reidel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3528-5_5
3. Arntzenius, F. (2011). Gunk, topology and measure. In D. DeVidi, M. Hallett, & P. Clark (Eds.), Logic, mathematics, philosophy: Vintage enthusiasms: Essays in honour of John L (pp. 327-343). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0214-1_16
4. Au, T. K. (1994). Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 71-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1012
5. Baillargeon, R. (1995). A model of physical reasoning in infancy. In C.Rovee-Collier & L. P. Lipsett (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 9, pp. 305-371). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6. Baillargeon, R. (2008). Innate ideas revisited: For a principle of persistence in infants' physical reasoning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00056.x
7. Baker, L. R. (2007). The metaphysics of everyday life: An essay in practical realism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487545
8. Bale, A. C., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26, 217-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003
9. Barner, D., Inagaki, S., & Li, P. (2009). Language, thought, and real nouns. Cognition, 111, 329-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02 .008
10. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115
11. Blok, S., Newman, G., & Rips, L. J. (2005). Individuals and their concepts. In W.-k. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11156-008
12. Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0
13. Bourgeois, K. S., Khawar, A. W., Neal, S. A., & Lockman, J. J. (2005). Infant manual exploration of objects, surfaces, and their interrelations. Infancy, 8, 233-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0803_3
14. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141-185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Brooks, N., Pogue, A., & Barner, D. (2011). Piecing together numerical language: Children's use of default units in early counting and quantification. Developmental Science, 14, 44-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00954.x
16. Burke, M. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place: A novel account of the relations among objects, sorts, sortals, and persistence conditions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 591-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2108583
17. Cacchione, T., & Call, J. (2010). Do gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) fail to represent objects in the context of cohesion violations? Cognition, 116, 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.002
18. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169-200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.008
19. Cartwright, H. M. (1965). Heraclitus and the bath water. The Philosophical Review, 74, 466-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183124
20. Cartwright, H. M. (1970). Quantities. The Philosophical Review, 79, 25-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2184067
21. Chang, Y.-J., Mikkila, M., Dora, B., Rips, L. J., & Hespos, S. J. (2015). Infants' representations for substance quantities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
22. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215-281). Oxford, England: Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-170150-5 .50011-1
23. Cheng, C.-Y. (1973). Comments on Moravcsik's paper. In J. Hintikka, P. Suppes, & J. M. E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 286-288). Dordrecht, Germany: Reidel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_14
24. Cheries, E. W., Mitroff, S. R., Wynn, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2008). Cohesion as a constraint on object persistence in infancy. Developmental Science, 11, 427-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00687.x
25. Chiang, W.-C., & Wynn, K. (2000). Infants' tracking of objects and collections. Cognition, 77, 169-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00091-3
26. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6
27. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515
28. Clearfield, M. W., & Mix, K. S. (1999). Number versus contour length in infants' discrimination of small visual sets. Psychological Science, 10, 408-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00177
29. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2005). From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review, 112, 347-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.347
30. Davey, B. A., & Priestley, H. A. (2002). Introduction to lattices and order (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809088
31. Davis, E. (2008). Pouring liquids: A study in commonsense physical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 172, 1540-1578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.04.003
32. Dickinson, D. K. (1987). The development of a concept of material kind. Science Education, 71, 615-628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce .3730710412
33. Dickinson, D. K. (1988). Learning names for materials: Factors constraining and limiting hypotheses about word meaning. Cognitive Development, 3, 15-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90028-7
34. Dickinson, D. K. (1989). Development of preschool children's ability to identify common materials. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 165-180.
35. eBay.com. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vaticanreliquary-1800s-1st-class-relic-Noah-s-Ark-/350922452914
36. Feigenson, L. (2005). A double-dissociation in infants' representations of object arrays. Cognition, 95, B37-B48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.006
37. Feldman, J. (2003). What is a visual object? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 252-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00111-6
38. Fine, K. (1999). Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 61-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00004
39. Fine, K. (2003). The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind, 112, 195-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/112.446.195
40. Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198236360.001.0001
41. Frazier, B. N., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Developmental changes in judgments of authentic objects. Cognitive Development, 24, 284-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.06.003
42. Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Wilson, A., & Hood, B. (2009). Picasso paintings, moon rocks, and hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults' evaluations of authentic objects. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853709X414601
43. Gao, F., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). What do infants know about continuous quantity? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 20-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2556
44. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Min, H. (1997). Word meaning biases or language-specific effects? Evidence from English, Spanish and Korean. First Language, 17, 31-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014272379701705102
45. Gillon, B. S. (2012). Mass terms. Philosophy Compass, 7, 712-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00514.x
46. Giralt, N., & Bloom, P. (2000). How special are objects? Children's reasoning about objects, parts, and holes. Psychological Science, 11, 497-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00295
47. Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2012). New perspectives on language and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 543-568). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48. Goddard, C. (2010). A piece of cheese, a grain of sand: The semantics of mass nouns and unitizers. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics (pp. 132-165). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
49. Gutheil, G., Gelman, S. A., Klein, E., Michos, K., & Kelaita, K. (2008). Preschoolers' use of spatiotemporal history, appearance, and proper name in determining individual identity. Cognition, 107, 366-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.014
50. Hall, D. G. (1996). Naming solids and nonsolids: Children's default construals. Cognitive Development, 11, 229 -264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90004-0
51. Hall, D. G. (1998). Continuity and the persistence of objects: When the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 28-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0688
52. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5_509::AID-SCE2_3.0.CO;2-F
53. Hawley, K. (2001). How things persist. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
54. Hayes, P. J. (1985). Naive physics I: Ontology for liquids. In J. R. Hobbs & R. C. Moore (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world (pp. 71-108). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
55. Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001). Reasoning about containment events in very young infants. Cognition, 78, 207-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00118-9
56. Hespos, S. J., Dora, B., Rips, L. J., & Christie, S. (2012). Infants make quantity discriminations for substances. Child Development, 83, 554-567.
57. Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A. L., & Rips, L. J. (2009). Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science, 20, 603-611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02331.x
58. Hirsch, E. (1982). The concept of identity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
59. Hobbes, T. (1839 -1845). De corpore. In W. Molesworth (Ed.), The English works of Thomas Hobbes (Vol. 1). London, England: Bohn. (Original work published 1655)
60. Hood, B. M., & Bloom, P. (2008). Children prefer certain individuals over perfect duplicates. Cognition, 106, 455-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.012
61. Hudson, H. (2007). Simples and gunk. Philosophy Compass, 2, 291-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00068.x
62. Huntley-Fenner, G., Carey, S., & Solimando, A. (2002). Objects are individuals but stuff doesn't count: Perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants' representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition, 85, 203-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00088-4
63. Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6
64. Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2007). Language-relative construal of individuation constrained by universal ontology: Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity. Cognitive Science, 31, 385-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326436
65. Johnston, M. (1992). Constitution is not identity. Mind, 101, 89-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/101.401.89
66. Johnston, M. (2005). Constitution. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy (pp. 636-677). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
67. Johnston, M. (2006). Hylomorphism. The Journal of Philosophy, 103, 652-698.
68. Kalish, C. W., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). On wooden pillows: Multiple classification and children's category-based inductions. Child Development, 63, 1536-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131574
69. Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674181816
70. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539895 .001.0001
72. Krifka, M. (2007, September). Masses and countables: Cognitive and linguistic factors. Paper presented at the CASTL Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Measurement, University of Tromsø, Norway. Retrieved from http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/Count-Mass-Distinction.pdf
73. Lawson, R. (2006). The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1667-1675. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195929
74. Lewis, D. K. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
75. Li, P., Dunham, Y., & Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 487-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.12.001
76. Liittschwager, J. C. (1995). Children's reasoning about identity across transformations. Dissertation Abstracts International: B. Sciences and Engineering, 55, 4623.
77. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A latticetheoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302-323). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820 .302
78. Lucy, J. A., & Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 465-492). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
79. Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M. (2004). Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 371-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005
81. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
82. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), Psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-280). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
83. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
84. Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36: 7_777::AID-TEA4_3.0.CO;2-Z
85. Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 558-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026035
86. Nichols, S., & Bruno, M. (2010). Intuitions about personal identity: An empirical study. Philosophical Psychology, 23, 293-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.490939
87. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339
88. Noles, N. S., & Bloom, P. (2006, May). The ship of Theseus: Concepts and identity. Paper presented at the Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY.
89. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62, 273-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620303
90. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65, 187-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650209
91. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92. O'Leary-Hawthorne, J., & Cortens, A. (1995). Towards ontological nihilism. Philosophical Studies, 79, 143-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989707
93. Paul, L. A. (2010). The puzzles of material constitution. Philosophy Compass, 5, 579-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00302.x
94. Pelletier, F. J. (2012). Mass terms. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 424-437). London, England: Routledge.
95. Pelletier, F. J., & Schubert, L. K. (2003). Mass expressions. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 249-335). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4524-6_6
96. Perry, L. K., Samuelson, L. K., & Burdinie, J. B. (2014). Highchair philosophers: The impact of seating context-dependent exploration on children's naming biases. Developmental Science, 17, 757-765.
97. Peterson, M. A. (2005). Object perception. In E. B. Goldstein (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of sensation and perception (pp. 168-203). Oxford, England: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470753477.ch6
98. Prasada, S. (1993). Learning names for solid substances: Quantifying solid entities in terms of portions. Cognitive Development, 8, 83-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(93)90006-Q
99. Prasada, S. (1999). Names of things and stuff: An Aristotelian perspective. In R. Jackendoff, P. Bloom, & K. Wynn (Eds.), Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara (pp. 119-146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
100. Prasada, S., & Dillingham, E. M. (2009). Representation of principled connections: A window onto the formal aspect of common sense conception. Cognitive Science, 33, 401-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01018.x
101. Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., & Haskell, T. (2002). Conceiving of entities as objects and as stuff. Cognition, 83, 141-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00173-1
102. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. Cognition, 80, 127-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00156-6
103. Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
104. Quine, W. V. (1973). The roots of reference. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
105. Rea, M. C. (1997). Introduction. In M. C. Rea (Ed.), Material constitution (pp. xv-lvii). Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
106. Rhemtulla, M., & Hall, D. G. (2009). Basic-level kinds and object persistence. Memory & Cognition, 37, 292-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC .37.3.292
107. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.004
108. Rips, L. J. (2011). Split identity: Intransitive judgments of the identity of objects. Cognition, 119, 356-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition .2011.01.019
109. Rips, L. J., Blok, S., & Newman, G. (2006). Tracing the identity of objects. Psychological Review, 113, 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X .113.1.1
110. Rips, L. J., Bloomfield, A., & Asmuth, J. (2008). From numerical concepts to concepts of number. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 623-642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005566
111. Rips, L. J., & Hespos, S. J. (2014). [Do people believe objects can occupy the same place at the same time?] Unpublished raw data.
112. Robb, D. (2009). Substance. In R. Le Poidevin, P. Simons, A. McGonigal, & R. P. Cameron (Eds.), The Routledge companion to metaphysics (pp. 256-264). London, England: Routledge.
113. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
114. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
115. Rosen, A. B., & Rozin, P. (1993). Now you see it, now you don't: The preschool child's conception of invisible particles in the context of dissolving. Developmental Psychology, 29, 300-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.300
116. Rosenberg, R. D., & Carey, S. (2009). Infants' representations of material entities. In B. M. Hood & L. R. Santos (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge (pp. 165-188). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216895.003.0007
117. Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 521-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
118. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
119. Sattig, T. (2010). Compatibilism about coincidence. The Philosophical Review, 119, 273-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2010-001
120. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Noûs, 37, 498-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.00448
121. Sears.com. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.sears.com/stadium-andballpark-home-plate-shaped-cufflinks-made/p-SPM7306463002?prdNo_ 1&blockNo_1&blockType_G1
122. Shipley, E. F., & Shepperson, B. (1990). Countable entities: Developmental changes. Cognition, 34, 109-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90041-H
123. Shoemaker, S. (1979). Identity, properties, and causality. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4, 321-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1979 .tb00384.x
124. Shutts, K., Condry, K. F., Santos, L. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Core knowledge and its limits: The domain of food. Cognition, 112, 120-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.005
125. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/019924443X.001.0001
126. Simon, T. J., Hespos, S. J., & Rochat, P. (1995). Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992). Cognitive Development, 10, 253-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(95)90011-X
127. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A study of ontology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
128. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: A study of students' preinstruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 317-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_2
129. Smith, C. L., Solomon, G. E. A., & Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: Elementary school students' understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 101-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.03.001
130. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard .9780674866270
131. Soja, N. N. (1992). Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development, 7, 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-A
132. Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90051-5
133. Sophian, C., & Kailihiwa, C. (1998). Units of counting: Developmental changes. Cognitive Development, 13, 561-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90007-7
134. Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_3
135. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.605
136. Srinivasan, M., Chestnut, E., Li, P., & Barner, D. (2013). Sortal concepts and pragmatic inference in children's early quantification of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 302-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.01.003
137. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1993). Subdivision processes in mathematics and science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 579-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300606
138. Subrahmanyam, K., Landau, B., & Gelman, R. (1999). Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in children's learning in novel words for objects and substances. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 249-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016909699386301
139. Taber, K. S., & García-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 99-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452868
140. Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of "Everything can be divided by two." International Journal of Science Education, 18, 669 -683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180603
141. Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1257-1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201006
142. Van Inwagen, P. (1987). When are objects parts? Philosophical Perspectives, 1, 21-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2214142
143. vanMarle, K., Aw, J., McCrink, K., & Santos, L. R. (2006). How capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) quantify objects and substances. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 416 -426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.120.4.416
144. vanMarle, K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Tracking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances. Developmental Science, 14, 502-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00998.x
145. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
146. Wiggins, D. (1968). On being in the same place at the same time. The Philosophical Review, 77, 90-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183184
147. Wilcox, T., & Baillargeon, R. (1998). Object individuation in infancy: The use of featural information in reasoning about occlusion events. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 97-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp .1998.0690
148. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/358749a0
149. Zimmerman, D. W. (1995). Theories of masses and problems of constitution. The Philosophical Review, 104, 53-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2186012