Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T07:47:12.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agency, argument structure, and causal inference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2008

Alice G. B. ter Meulen
Alice G. B. ter Meulen
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Cognition, University of Gröningen, 9700 AS Gröningen, The Netherlands. a.g.b.ter.meulen@rug.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Logically, weighting is transitive, but similarity is not, so clustering cannot be either. Entailments must help a child to review attribute lists more efficiently. Children's understanding of exceptions to generic claims precedes their ability to articulate explanations. So agency, as enabling constraint, may show coherent covariation with attributes, as mere extensional, observable effect of intensional entailments.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 728 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carlson, G. & Pelletier, J., eds. (1995) The generic book. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (1993) Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5):437–93.Google Scholar
Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Meulen, A. (1995) Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense and aspect. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Meulen, A. (2000) Chronoscopes: The dynamic representation of facts and events. In: Speaking of events, ed. Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F. & Varzi, A., pp. 151–68. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Meulen, A. (2004) Dynamic definite descriptions, implicit arguments and familiarity. In: Descriptions and beyond, ed. Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A., pp. 344–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ter Meulen, A. (2006) Cohesion in temporal context: Aspectual adverbs as dynamic indexicals. In: Comparative and cross-linguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture, ed. Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E. & Portner, P., pp. 362–77. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J., & ter Meulen, A. (1997) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/North-Holland/MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Zaanen, M. (2001) Bootstrapping structure using similarity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds. Available at: citeseer.ist.psu.edu/324452.htmlGoogle Scholar
van Zaanen, M. (2002) Implementing alignment-based learning. In: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference (ICGI), vol. 2482, ed. Adriaans, P., Fernau, H. & van Zaanen, M., pp. 312–14. Springer-Verlag. Available at: http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~menno/research/publications/Google Scholar
van Zaanen, M. (2002) Implementing alignment-based learning. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference (ICGI), Amsterdam, pp. (2482)312–14. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar