Ellen M. Markman, "How Children Constrain the Possible Meanings of Words," In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and in- tellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1987.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....instance for one concept to be an implicit negative instance for all other spatial concepts being learned. There are problems with this approach, as we shall see, but they are surmountable. There are related ideas present in the child language literature, which support the work presented here. [Markman, 1987] posits a principle of mutual exclusivity for object naming, whereby a child assumes that each object may only have one name. This is to be viewed more as a learning strategy than as a hard andfast rule: clearly, a given object may have many names (an office chair, a chair, a piece of ....

Ellen M. Markman, "How Children Constrain the Possible Meanings of Words," In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and in- tellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1987.

....their NVNPN frame. In their NVN frame, come and go elicited significantly more verb compliance than stay and fall. Another proposal about recovery from overgeneralizations is termed The Mutual Exclusivity Principle (also called Contrast, Uniqueness, or Preemption) Bowerman, 1982; Clark, 1987; Markman, 1987). In summary, this principle is that children will allow only one lexical entry to occupy a semantic niche. When two words are determined to have similar meanings, one of them is pre empted and removed from the lexicon. For example, causative come is basically equivalent to bring. Using Bowerman s ....

Markman, E. (1987). How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

....negative instance for all other spatial terms being learned. Thus, a positive example of in is taken as an implicit negative example of above, below, outside, through, etc. This is essentially the same as the #principle of mutual exclusivity , posited for the process of learning to name objects #Markman 1987#. Related ideas can also be found in the language learning literature #Johnston Slobin 1979; Clark 1987; Pinker 1989; MacWhinney 1989; Sinha et al. 1993#. There is a serious problem with this useful heuristic, however: it can easily give rise to false implicit negative evidence.For instance, a ....

Markman, Ellen M. 1987. Howchildren constrain the possible meanings of words. In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, ed. by Ulric Neisser, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

....negative instance for all other spatial terms being learned. Thus, a positive example of in is taken as an implicit negative example of above, below, outside, through, etc. This is essentially the same as the principle of mutual exclusivity , posited for the process of learning to name objects (Markman 1987). Related ideas can also be found in the language learning literature (Johnston Slobin 1979; Clark 1987; Pinker 1989; MacWhinney 1989; Sinha et al. 1993) There is a serious problem with this useful heuristic, however: it can easily give rise to false implicit negative evidence. For instance, a ....

Markman, Ellen M. 1987. How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, ed. by Ulric Neisser, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

....the input without overgeneralizing to include inappropriate usages, if these usages have never been explicitly flagged as infelicitous (p. 59) The book is worth reading for this chapter alone. He implements a solution based on the so called principle (actually, heuristic) of mutual exclusivity (Markman, 1987) which supposes that children make the assumption that any given object may have only one name. When this heuristic is applied to the domain of spatial terms it works relatively well, if not perfectly, since a positive instance of one concept usually is a pretty good implicit negative instance for ....

Markman, E. (1987). How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, E. Neisser (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

....one scene, we have an explicit positive instance of above and implicit negative instances for all other terms being learned. This is indicated at the output nodes at the top of the figure. There are related ideas present in the child language literature, which support the work presented here. [Markman, 1987] posits a principle of mutual exclusivity for object naming, whereby a child assumes that each object may only have one name. This is to be viewed more as a learning strategy than as a hard and fast rule: clearly, a given object may have many names (an office chair, a chair, a piece of ....

Ellen M. Markman, "How Children Constrain the Possible Meanings of Words," In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

No context found.

Ellen M. Markman. How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In U. Neisser, editor, Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, pages 255--287. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC