Srinivasan Mahesh, Barner David
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2016 Sep;7(5):341-53. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1396. Epub 2016 Jun 15.
How does linguistic structure relate to how we construe reality? In many languages, countable individuals like objects are typically labeled by count nouns (e.g., two rabbits, every truck, etc.), while unindividuated masses like substances are typically labeled by mass nouns (e.g., much mud, barrel of oil, etc.) (Quine WVO. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1960). These facts have led researchers to propose that learning mass-count syntax affects how speakers perceive objects and substances or alternatively that an understanding of this distinction-or one between individuals and nonindividuals-scaffolds the acquisition of mass and count nouns. Here, we evaluate these ideas and describe how recent developments in the literature have fundamentally changed our understanding of the mass-count distinction and how it relates to individuation. Across three sections, we show that a simple distinction between countable individuals and nonindividuals cannot provide a foundation for the mass-count distinction (e.g., because many mass nouns like furniture and luggage can denote individuals). Furthermore, we show that mass-count syntax does not shape whether items are construed as individuals or not, but instead allows speakers to select from a set of universally available meanings (e.g., because speakers of all languages quantify objects and substances similarly). We argue that a complete understanding of how mass-count syntax encodes reality requires understanding how different aspects of language-syntax, lexical roots, word meanings, and pragmatic inference-interact to encode abstract, countable individuals. WIREs Cogn Sci 2016, 7:341-353. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1396 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
语言结构与我们构建现实的方式有怎样的关联？在许多语言中，像物体这样可数的个体通常由可数名词来标记（例如，两只兔子、每辆卡车等），而像物质这样不可分割的集合通常由不可数名词来标记（例如，许多泥巴、一桶油等）（蒯因WVO.《语词和对象》。马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社；1960年）。这些事实促使研究人员提出，学习可数与不可数句法会影响说话者对物体和物质的感知，或者反过来，对这种区分——或者个体与非个体之间的区分——的理解为可数名词和不可数名词的习得提供了支撑。在此，我们对这些观点进行评估，并描述文献中的最新进展如何从根本上改变了我们对可数与不可数区分及其与个体化关系的理解。在三个部分中，我们表明，可数个体与非个体之间的简单区分并不能为可数与不可数的区分提供基础（例如，因为许多不可数名词，如家具和行李，可以表示个体）。此外，我们表明，可数与不可数句法并不会决定事物是否被理解为个体，而是允许说话者从一组普遍可用的意义中进行选择（例如，因为所有语言的使用者对物体和物质的量化方式相似）。我们认为，要全面理解可数与不可数句法如何编码现实，需要理解语言的不同方面——句法、词源、词义和语用推理——如何相互作用来编码抽象的可数个体。《认知科学综述》2016年，7:341 - 353。doi:10.1002/wcs.1396 有关本文的更多资源，请访问《认知科学综述》网站。
