Can the World Help Us in Fixing the Reference of Natural Kind Terms?

According to Putnam the reference of natural kind terms is fixed by the world, at least partly; whether two things belong to the same kind depends on whether they obey the same objective laws. We show that Putnam's criterion of substance identity only “works” if we read “objective laws” as “OBJECTIVE LAWS”. Moreover, at least some of the laws of some of the special sciences have to be included. But what we consider to be good special sciences and what not depends upon our values. Hence, “objective laws” cannot be read as “OBJECTIVE LAWS”. It follows that the reference of natural kind terms cannot be fixed by the world, not even partly. The final conclusion applies to a variety of realisms. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

How is God-talk logically possible? A sketch for an argument on the logic of ‘God’

In this paper I want to argue for the optimal way to characterise the logical and semantical behaviour of the singular term ‘God’ used in religious language. The relevance of this enterprise to logical theory is the main focus as well. Doing this presupposes to outline the two rivaling approaches of well-definition of singular terms: Kripke’s (“rigid designators”) and Hintikka’s (“world-lines”). ‘God’ as a “rigid designator” is purified from all real-life-language-games of identification and only spells out a metaphysical tag, which favours the view of “anything goes”. Instead, ‘God’ as a “world-line,” plus two ways of quantification, is much more flexible to theological traditions, teachings of the church, religious practices and personal feelings. Thus, it provides a sufficiently well-defined singular term for the purposes of logical theory. The whole sketch is based on Jaakko Hintikka’s logical ideas, mainly on his responses to different authors in PJH. I have systematically omitted direct references to his texts because I have modified considerably his ideas for my own purposes.     

留学生汉语基本颜色词习得模式诊断研究——以规则空间模型为工具

认知诊断方法能够对留学生各不相同的基本颜色词习得模式进行描述,并且对补救提供建议.本文以规则空间方法对留学生现代汉语普通话基本颜色词的习得模式进行诊断,并提供“学习之路”供补救参考.研究发现,规则空间模型对汉语作为二语的颜色词习得研究适用,研究中的被试全部成功归类;对于汉语基本颜色词基本义和日常生活中较为常见的转义,留学生习得比例也较高;“学习之路”是一种实用的提示学习者补救路径的方法,对于下一步的学习和教学有直接的指导作用.     

Graded differential reinforcement: Response-dependent reinforcer amount

After key pecking had been autoshaped, six pigeons were exposed to a condition in which the duration of grain availability at the end of an 8-second trial depended on the number of responses emitted during the trial (0.25-second access to grain per response). This procedure, called correlated reinforcement, alternated across conditions with the automaintenance baseline in which the 8-second trial terminated with a constant 2.5-second access to grain. Two control procedures were run; in both, the reinforcer durations were yoked to those obtained in the last correlated session. In the yoked control no responses were required, but in the single-response yoked control at least one response was required to receive the yoked duration. The correlated condition maintained response rates above those produced by the two control conditions. These results may be accounted for by differential reinforcement.     

Reflections on how color term acquisition is constrained

Compared with object word learning, young children typically find learning color terms to be a difficult linguistic task. In this reflections article, I consider two questions that are fundamental to investigations into the developmental acquisition of color terms. First, I consider what constrains color term acquisition and how stable these constraints are over culture and age. I review recent studies that have identified conceptual, attentional, and linguistic constraints that seemingly operate on the acquisition of color terms compared with object words and the differential acquisition of color terms within a given language. Second, I consider whether these constraints are specific to the acquisition of color terms or whether they reflect more general constraints that operate on other classes of lexical terms such as different abstract property terms.     

What constrains children's learning of novel shape terms?

In this study, 3-year-olds matched on vocabulary score were taught three new shape terms by one of three types of linguistic contrast: corrective, semantic, or referential. A 5-week training paradigm implemented four training sessions and four assessment sessions. Corrective contrast ("This is concave, it is not square," where square is the child's label for the target) produced more learning than did either semantic or referential contrast. In addition, regardless of group, more was learned about those targets that were classified more variably at pretest. Avoidance of lexical overlap (i.e., using more than one term for the same dimension) might make it more difficult for children to learn new dimensional adjectives, and a "shape bias" might make learning shape terms easier. However, children's expectations about the speaker's communicative intent interacted with the potential benefits of contrast in the semantic condition, and children in that group learned no more than did controls.