Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):25 – 49 (2003)
|Abstract||While recognizing the theoretical importance of context, current research has treated naming as though semantic meaning were invariant and the same mapping of category exemplars and names should exist across experimental contexts. An assumed symmetry or bidirectionality in naming behavior has been implicit in the interchangeable use of tasks that ask subjects to match names to stimuli and tasks that ask subjects to match stimuli to names. Examples from the literature are discussed together with several studies of color naming and basic emotion naming in which no such symmetry was found. A more complete model of naming is proposed to account for flexible mapping of names to items. Principles of naming are suggested to describe effects of stimulus sampling, differing access to terms, task demands, and other impacts on naming behavior.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Norton Nelkin (1987). How Sensations Get Their Names. Philosophical Studies 51 (May):325-39.
Ryan Christensen (2011). Propositional Names. Philosophia 39 (1):163-177.
J. Van Brakel (1982). Conventions In Naming. Philosophy Research Archives 8:243-277.
Gil Anidjar (2006). Traité de Tous les Noms (What Is Called Naming). Epoché 10 (2):287-301.
Leon Horsten (2005). Canonical Naming Systems. Minds and Machines 15 (2):229-257.
M. W. Pelczar (2001). Names as Tokens and Names as Tools. Synthese 128 (1-2):133 - 155.
Ora Matushansky (2008). On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):573-627.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?