| 2 |
Workshop on Blood Loss Quantification in Obstetrics: Improving Medical Student Learning through Clinical Simulation
|
|
|
|
In: Healthcare; Volume 10; Issue 2; Pages: 399 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Linguistic and non-linguistic cues to acquiring the strong distributivity of each
|
|
|
|
In: Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America; Vol 7, No 1 (2022): Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America; 5236 ; 2473-8689 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Définir « interculturel » à l’aune d’un corpus de références en SHS
|
|
|
|
In: ISSN: 0077-2712 ; EISSN: 1952-4250 ; Mélanges CRAPEL ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03469564 ; Mélanges CRAPEL, Centre de recherches et d'applications pédagogiques en langues, 2021, 42 (2), pp.5-33 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
Les métaphores associées à l’eau : une tendance à la négativité ancrée dans une motivation psycho-cognitive complexe
|
|
|
|
In: ISSN: 2425-1526 ; ELIS - Echanges de linguistique en Sorbonne ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03171694 ; ELIS - Echanges de linguistique en Sorbonne, Université Paris Sorbonne, 2021, ELIS, 7 ; https://celiso.paris-sorbonne.fr/revue-des-jeunes-chercheurs/ (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Quantification: the view from the natural language generation ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
Quantification: the view from natural language generation ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Cyclic scope and processing difficulty in a Minimalist parser
|
|
|
|
In: Glossa: a journal of general linguistics; Vol 6, No 1 (2021); 8 ; 2397-1835 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
The role of attentiveness in logical representation priming within and between quantifiers ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
The role of bias adaptation in priming of logical representations - Registration Experiment 3 ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
Outlier Recognition via Linguistic Aggregation of Graph Databases
|
|
|
|
In: Applied Sciences ; Volume 11 ; Issue 16 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 16 |
"Algún" indefinite is not bound by adverbs of quantification
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Plurality and quantification in graph representation of meaning
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
Quantification: the view from natural language generation
|
|
|
|
In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence ; 2021. - https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.627177 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
The Psycho-logic of Universal Quantifiers
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
A universally quantified sentence like every frog is green is standardly thought to express a two-place second-order relation (e.g., the set of frogs is a subset of the set of green things). This dissertation argues that as a psychological hypothesis about how speakers mentally represent universal quantifiers, this view is wrong in two respects. First, each, every, and all are not represented as two-place relations, but as one-place descriptions of how a predicate applies to a restricted domain (e.g., relative to the frogs, everything is green). Second, while every and all are represented in a second-order way that implicates a group, each is represented in a completely first-order way that does not involve grouping the satisfiers of a predicate together (e.g., relative to individual frogs, each one is green).These “psycho-logical” distinctions have consequences for how participants evaluate sentences like every circle is green in controlled settings. In particular, participants represent the extension of the determiner’s internal argument (the cir- cles), but not the extension of its external argument (the green things). Moreover, the cognitive system they use to represent the internal argument differs depend- ing on the determiner: Given every or all, participants show signatures of forming ensemble representations, but given each, they represent individual object-files. In addition to psychosemantic evidence, the proposed representations provide explanations for at least two semantic phenomena. The first is the “conservativity” universal: All determiners allow for duplicating their first argument in their second argument without a change in informational significance (e.g., every fish swims has the same truth-conditions as every fish is a fish that swims). This is a puzzling gen- eralization if determiners express two-place relations, but it is a logical consequence if they are devices for forming one-place restricted quantifiers. The second is that every, but not each, naturally invites certain kinds of generic interpretations (e.g., gravity acts on every/#each object). This asymmetry can po- tentially be explained by details of the interfacing cognitive systems (ensemble and object-file representations). And given that the difference leads to lower-level con- comitants in child-ambient speech (as revealed by a corpus investigation), children may be able to leverage it to acquire every’s second-order meaning. This case study on the universal quantifiers suggests that knowing the meaning of a word like every consists not just in understanding the informational contribu- tion that it makes, but in representing that contribution in a particular format. And much like phonological representations provide instructions to the motor plan- ning system, it supports the idea that meaning representations provide (sometimes surprisingly precise) instructions to conceptual systems.
|
|
Keyword:
Cognitive psychology; Linguistics; Meaning; Philosophy; Psycholinguistics; Psychosemantics; Quantification; Semantics
|
|
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/27869
https://doi.org/10.13016/fdr8-3qqh
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|
|
