Malone Stephanie A, Kalashnikova Marina, Davis Erin M
School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University.
The MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney.
Cogn Sci. 2016 Nov;40(8):2095-2107. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12321. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
Adults reason by exclusivity to identify the meanings of novel words. However, it is debated whether, like children, they extend this strategy to disambiguate other referential expressions (e.g., facts about objects). To further inform this debate, this study tested 41 adults on four conditions of a disambiguation task: label/label, fact/fact, label/fact, and fact/label (Scofield & Behrend, ). Participants also provided a verbal explanation for their referent selections to tease apart the underlying processes. Results indicated that adults successfully discerned the target object in the label/label and label/fact condition, yet not the remaining two conditions. Verbal reports indicated that the strategy utilized to disambiguate differed depending upon communicative context. These findings confirm that the tendency to reason by exclusivity becomes restricted to word-learning situations with growing linguistic and communicative experience.
成年人通过排他性推理来确定新单词的含义。然而,他们是否像儿童一样将这种策略扩展到消除其他指称性表达(例如,关于物体的事实)的歧义,这一点存在争议。为了进一步为这场辩论提供信息,本研究在消除歧义任务的四种条件下对41名成年人进行了测试:标签/标签、事实/事实、标签/事实和事实/标签(斯科菲尔德和贝伦德, )。参与者还对他们的指称选择提供了口头解释,以区分潜在的过程。结果表明,成年人在标签/标签和标签/事实条件下成功辨别出了目标物体,但在其余两种条件下则没有。口头报告表明,用于消除歧义的策略因交流情境而异。这些发现证实,随着语言和交流经验的增加,通过排他性推理的倾向仅限于单词学习情境。