Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:28:59.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context sensitivity and insensitivity in object naming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Barbara C. Malt
Barbara C. Malt*
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objects can almost always be called by more than one name, and the name chosen depends on the context. However, studies of naming in some traditions elicit names by showing objects in isolation and asking merely What is it? If the names produced are not the same as those that would be given in more fully specified communicative contexts, the value of the tasks for understanding object naming is in doubt. The current study examined the effects of different communicative demands on naming of 60 household containers. A standard “free naming” task was contrasted with two other versions. In these two, participants had the goal of getting an addressee to find a target object among others. In one, each object needed to be distinguished from a small set of dissimilar objects, visible to the addressee. In the other, each needed to be distinguished from a large set of similar objects, not visible to the addressee. Responses were sensitive to context in the number of modifiers produced. However, they were insensitive in the head nouns produced. Simple naming tasks such as What is it? can produce results for head nouns equivalent to those from tasks providing more fully specified communicative contexts.

Keywords

object namingreferential communicationcontext effectscommunicative goalsbasic level names
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 81 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013

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

Atran, S. 1985. The nature of folk-botanical life-forms. American Anthropologist 87. 298–315.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Boster, J., Berlin, B. & O'Neill, J.. 1986. The correspondence of Jívaroan to scientific ornithology. American Anthropologist 88. 569–583.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and space, 385–436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H. 1984. Language and living things: Uniformities in folk classification and naming. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1958. How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review 65. 14–21.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. 1979. Mystical and mundane in Kalam classification of birds. In Ellen, R. F. & Reason, D. (eds.), Classifications in their social context, 57–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. A.. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. & Teasley, S.D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington: APA Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Murphy, G. L.. 1982. Audience design in meaning and reference. In LeNy, J. F. & Kintsch, W. (eds.), Language and comprehension, 287–299. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D.. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22. 1–39.Google Scholar
Conklin, H. C. 1957. Hanunóo agriculture: A report on an integral system of shifting cultivation in the Philippines. Rome: FAO, United Nations.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1977. The pragmatics of lexical specificity. Journal of Linguistics 13. 153–164.Google Scholar
Dougherty, J. W. 1978. Salience and relativity in classification. American Ethnologist 5. 55–80.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2010. Semantic typology. In Song, J. J. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504–553. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hunn, E. 1977. Tzeltal folk zoology: The classification of discontinuities in nature. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Isaacs, E. A. & Clark, H. H.. 1987. References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116. 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K. & Hilliard, C.. 2012, 02 2. Phonological overlap affects lexical selection during sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0027862.Google Scholar
Kay, P., Berlin, B., Maffi, L. & Merrifield, W.. 1997. Color naming across languages. In Hardin, C. L. & Maffi, L. (eds.), Color categories in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. & Shuy, R. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 340–373. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, E. L., Murphy, G. L. & Shoben, E. J.. 1997. The effects of prior processing episodes on basic-level superiority. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A. 24–48.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J. S. & Bowerman, M.. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109. 235–250.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Enfield, N. J. & van Staden, M.. 2006. Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation. Special issue of Language Sciences 28(2-3).Google Scholar
Malt, B. C. 1995. Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology 29. 85–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N. & Majid, A.. 2008. Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science 19. 232–240.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C. & Sloman, S. A.. 2007. Category essence or essentially pragmatic? Creator's intention in naming and what's really what. Cognition 105. 615–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A. & Gennari, S.. 2003. Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 20–42.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M. & Wang, Y.. 1999. Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 230–262.Google Scholar
Matan, A. & Carey, S.. 2001. Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition 78. 1–26.Google Scholar
McCloskey, M. E. & Glucksberg, S.. 1978. Natural categories: Well-defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition 6. 462–472.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. 1987. Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, Emory symposia in cognition, 1, 201–233. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Metzing, C. & Brennan, S. E.. 2003. When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects in the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 201–213.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. & Wisniewski, E. J.. 1989. Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15. 572–586.Google ScholarPubMed
Regier, T., Kay, P., & Khetarpal, N.. 2007. Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 1436–1441.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. R., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P.. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382–439.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A., Harrison, M. C. & Malt, B. C.. 2002. Recent exposure affects artifact naming. Memory and Cognition 30. 687–695.Google Scholar