How similar are objects and events?

Alexis Wellwood, Susan J Hespos, Lance Rips

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Semanticists often assume an ontology for natural language that includes not only ordinary objects, but also events, and other sorts of entities. We link this ontology to how speakers represent static and dynamic entities. Specifically, we test how speakers determine whether an entity counts as "atomic" by using count vs. mass (e.g., some gleebs, some gleeb) and distributive vs. non-distributive descriptions (e.g., gleeb every second or so, gleeb around a little). We then seek evidence for atomic representation in a non-linguistic task. Ultimately we suggest that natural language ontology reveals properties of language-independent conceptualization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)473-501
Number of pages29
JournalActa Linguistica Academica
Volume65
Issue number2-3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

ontology
event
language
evidence
Entity
Ontology
Natural Language
Language
Distributive
Conceptualization
Semanticists

Keywords

  • Mass/count
  • Number
  • Ontology
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Telicity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cultural Studies
  • Literature and Literary Theory

Cite this

Wellwood, Alexis ; Hespos, Susan J ; Rips, Lance. / How similar are objects and events?. In: Acta Linguistica Academica. 2018 ; Vol. 65, No. 2-3. pp. 473-501.
@article{6bdb9ebddc5a48baa1d16036d14d4e8c,
title = "How similar are objects and events?",
abstract = "Semanticists often assume an ontology for natural language that includes not only ordinary objects, but also events, and other sorts of entities. We link this ontology to how speakers represent static and dynamic entities. Specifically, we test how speakers determine whether an entity counts as {"}atomic{"} by using count vs. mass (e.g., some gleebs, some gleeb) and distributive vs. non-distributive descriptions (e.g., gleeb every second or so, gleeb around a little). We then seek evidence for atomic representation in a non-linguistic task. Ultimately we suggest that natural language ontology reveals properties of language-independent conceptualization.",
keywords = "Mass/count, Number, Ontology, Psycholinguistics, Telicity",
author = "Alexis Wellwood and Hespos, {Susan J} and Lance Rips",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1556/2062.2018.65.2-3.9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "473--501",
journal = "Acta Linguistica Academica",
issn = "2559-8201",
publisher = "Akademiai Kiado",
number = "2-3",

}

How similar are objects and events? / Wellwood, Alexis; Hespos, Susan J; Rips, Lance.

In: Acta Linguistica Academica, Vol. 65, No. 2-3, 01.06.2018, p. 473-501.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How similar are objects and events?

AU - Wellwood, Alexis

AU - Hespos, Susan J

AU - Rips, Lance

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Semanticists often assume an ontology for natural language that includes not only ordinary objects, but also events, and other sorts of entities. We link this ontology to how speakers represent static and dynamic entities. Specifically, we test how speakers determine whether an entity counts as "atomic" by using count vs. mass (e.g., some gleebs, some gleeb) and distributive vs. non-distributive descriptions (e.g., gleeb every second or so, gleeb around a little). We then seek evidence for atomic representation in a non-linguistic task. Ultimately we suggest that natural language ontology reveals properties of language-independent conceptualization.

AB - Semanticists often assume an ontology for natural language that includes not only ordinary objects, but also events, and other sorts of entities. We link this ontology to how speakers represent static and dynamic entities. Specifically, we test how speakers determine whether an entity counts as "atomic" by using count vs. mass (e.g., some gleebs, some gleeb) and distributive vs. non-distributive descriptions (e.g., gleeb every second or so, gleeb around a little). We then seek evidence for atomic representation in a non-linguistic task. Ultimately we suggest that natural language ontology reveals properties of language-independent conceptualization.

KW - Mass/count

KW - Number

KW - Ontology

KW - Psycholinguistics

KW - Telicity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050466065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050466065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1556/2062.2018.65.2-3.9

DO - 10.1556/2062.2018.65.2-3.9

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 473

EP - 501

JO - Acta Linguistica Academica

JF - Acta Linguistica Academica

SN - 2559-8201

IS - 2-3

ER -