SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Baldwin, D. A. (1989). Priorities in children’s expectations about object label reference: Form over color. Child Development, 60, 12891306.
  • Baldwin, D. A., & Saylor, M. M. (2005). Language promotes structural alignment in the acquisition of mentalistic concepts. In J. A.Astington & J. A.Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 123143). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Blades, M., & Cooke, Z. (1994). Young children’s ability to understand a model as a spatial representation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 201218.
  • Boroditsky, L. (2007). Comparison and the development of knowledge. Cognition, 102(1), 118128.
  • Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 34(3), 244286.
  • Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D.Gentner & S.Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 387428). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development [preface, introduction]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Boysen, S. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1989). Numerical competence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103(1), 2331.
  • Carey, S. (1985a). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. F.Chipman, J. W.Segal & R.Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Current research and open questions, Vol. 2 (pp. 485517). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Carey, S. (1985b). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Carey, S. (2001). Whorf versus continuity theorists: bringing data to bear on the debate. In M.Bowerman & S. C.Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 185214). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus. Winter, 133(1), 5968.
  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Casasola, M. (2005). Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations. Developmental Psychology, 41, 183192.
  • Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500508.
  • Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15(6), 11471156.
  • Chen, Z. (1996). Children’s analogical problem solving: The effects of superficial, structural, and procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 410431.
  • Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the Control of Variables Strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 10981120.
  • Childers, J. B. (2005). Is comparison useful for verb learning? Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
  • Childers, J. B., & Paik, J. H. (2009). Korean- and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms. Journal of Child Language.
  • Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology, 37, 739748.
  • Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (in press). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development.
  • Clement, C., & Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15, 89132.
  • Colhoun, J., & Gentner, D. (2009). Inference processes in causal analogies. In B.Kokinov, K.Holyoak, & D.Gentner (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on analogy (pp. 8296). Sofia, Bulgaria: NBU Press.
  • Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238, 15561557.
  • Dessalegn, B., & Landau, B. (2008). More than meets the eye: The role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19, 189195.
    Direct Link:
  • Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 143.
  • Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J.Sternberg & J. E.Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 76, 621646.
  • Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 163.
  • Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of analogy in children’s interpretations of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 4181.
  • Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141205.
  • Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819824.
  • French, R. M. (2002). The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(5), 200205.
  • Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts of number. New York: Springer Verlag.
  • Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 4374.
  • Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 5965.
  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gelman, S., Raman, L., & Gentner, D. (2009). Effects of language and similarity on comparison processing. Language Learning and Development, 5, 147171.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
  • Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59, 4759.
  • Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In D.Gentner & S.Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D., Anggoro, F., & Klibanoff, R. (in press). Children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development.
  • Gentner, D., & Christie, S. (2008). Relational language supports relational cognition in humans and apes. Behaviorial and Brain Sciences, 31, 137183.
  • Gentner, D., & Christie, S. (in press). Why we’re so smart: Mutual bootstrapping between language and relational cognition. Language and Cognition.
  • Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. (in press). Computational models of analogy. WIREs Cognitive Science.
  • Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Whither Whorf. In D.Gentner & S.Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 314). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. (Eds.) (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., & Poltermann, A. (2009). Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In B.Kokinor, K.Holyoak, & D.Gentner (Eds.), Proceedings of the second analogy conference (pp. 175182). Sofia, Bulgaria: NBU Press.
  • Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Hung, B. (2007). Comparison facilitates children’s learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 285307.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152158.
    Direct Link:
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 4556.
  • Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263297.
  • Gentner, D., & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14, 487513.
  • Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (2004). The role of comparison in children’s early word learning. In D. G.Hall & S. R.Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 533568). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A.Gelman & J. P.Brynes (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225277). London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (2006). Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 297301.
    Direct Link:
  • Gentner, D., & Sagi, E. (2006). Does “different” imply a difference? A comparison of two tasks. In R.Sun & N.Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 261266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277300.
  • Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331355.
  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138.
  • Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 406499.
  • Hammer, R., Diesendruck, G., Weinshall, D., & Hochstein, S. (2009). The development of category learning strategies: What makes the difference? Cognition, 112(2009), 105119.
  • Haryu, E., Imai, M., & Okada, H. (in press). Object similarity bootstraps young children to action-based verb extensions. Child Development.
  • Haun, D. B. M., & Call, J. (2009). Great apes’ capacities to recognize relational similarity. Cognition, 110(2009), 147159.
  • Hermer-Vasquez, L., Spelke, E. S., & Katsnelson, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 336.
  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427466.
  • Imai, M., Gentner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children’s theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9, 4575.
  • Kokinov, B., & French, R. M. (2002). Computational models of analogy-making. In L.Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 113118). London: Macmillan.
  • Kokinov, B. N., & Petrov, A. A. (2001). Integrating memory and reasoning in analogy-making: The AMBR model. In D.Gentner, K. J.Holyoak, & B. N.Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 161196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 27972822.
  • Kuehne, S. E., Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Quinn, B. (2000). SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. In L. R.Gleitman & A. K.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 770775). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kuehne, S. E., Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. D. (2000). Modeling infant learning via symbolic structural alignment. In L. R.Gleitman & A. K.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 286291). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299321.
  • Larkey, L. B., & Love, B. C. (2003). CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder. Cognitive Science, 27, 781794.
  • Liu, J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Sak, K. (2001). One cow does not an animal make! Children can extend novel words at the superordinate level. Child Development, 72, 16741694.
  • Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(2), 189219.
  • Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315353.
  • Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Gentner, D. (1999). Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 586597.
  • Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 216228.
  • Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18, 10771083.
    Direct Link:
  • Marcus, G., Vijayan, S., Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 7780.
  • Markman, A. B. (1997). Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science, 21(4), 373418.
  • Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993a). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431467.
  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993b). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517535.
  • Meck, W. H., & Church, R. M. (1983). A mode control model of counting and timing processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioral Processes, 9, 320334.
  • Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254278.
  • Ming, N. (2009). Analogies vs. contrasts: A comparison of their learning benefits. In B.Kokinov, K.Holyoak, & D.Gentner (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on analogy. (pp. 338347). Sofia, Bulgaria: NBU Press.
  • Mix, K. S. (2002). The construction of number concepts. Cognitive Development, 17, 13451363.
  • Mix, K. S., Sandhofer, C. M., & Baroody, A. J. (2005) Number words and number concepts: The interplay of verbal and nonverbal quantification in early childhood. In R. V.Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. 33 (pp. 305346). New York: Academic Press.
  • Namy, L. L., & Gentner, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow’s ears: Young children’s use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 515.
  • Oakes, L. M., & Ribar, R. J. (2005). A comparison of infants’ categorization in paired and successive presentation familiarization tasks. Infancy, 7, 8598.
  • Oden, D. L., Thompson, R. K. R., & Premack, D. (2001). Can an ape reason analogically? Comprehension and production of analogical problems by Sarah, a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). In D.Gentner, K. J.Holyoak & B.Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (pp. 471498). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77, 257273.
  • Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2007). Representational change and children’s numerical estimation. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 169195.
  • Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161180.
  • Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 109178.
  • Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306, 499503.
  • Piccin, T. B., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Why nouns trump verbs in word learning: New evidence from children and adults in the Human Simulation Paradigm. Language Learning and Development, 3, 295323.
  • Premack, D. (1983). The codes of man and beasts. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6, 125167.
  • Pruden, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Shallcross, W. L., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2008). Foundations of verb learning: Comparison helps infants abstract event components. In H.Chan, H.Jacob & E.Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual Boston University conference on language development, 2, 402414. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Ramscar, M., & Yarlett, D. (2003). Semantic grounding in models of analogy: an environmental approach. Cognitive Science, 27, 4171.
  • Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249271.
  • Rips, L. J., Bloomfield, A., & Asmuth, J. (2008). From numerical concepts to concepts of number. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 623642.
  • Russell, B. (1920). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Co.
  • Sandhofer, C. M., & Smith, L. B. (2001). Why children learn color and size words so differently: Evidence from adults’ learning of artificial terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 600620.
  • Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: Evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237243.
    Direct Link:
  • Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2005). Relational words as handles: They bring along baggage. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 20502055). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). Re-representation using labels: Comparison or replacement? Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Nashville, TN: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D.Gentner & S.Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 277312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Spelke, E. S., & Tsivkin, S. (2001). Initial knowledge and conceptual change: space and number. In M.Bowerman & S. C.Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 70100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Thompson, R. K. R., & Oden, D. L. (1996). A profound disparity revisited: Perception and judgment of abstract identity relations by chimpanzees, human infants, and monkeys. Behavioural Processes, 35, 149161.
  • Thompson, C. A., & Opfer, J. E. (in press). How 15 hundred is like 15 cherries: Effect of progressive alignment on representational changes in numerical cognition. Child Development.
  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327352.
  • Wang, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2008). Can infants be ‘‘taught’’ to attend to a new physical variable in an event category? The case of height in covering events. Cognitive Psychology, 56(2008), 284326.
  • Waxman, S. R., & Klibanoff, R. S. (2000). The role of comparison in the extension of novel adjectives. Developmental Psychology, 36, 571581.
  • Wilkerson, E., Benjamin, N. J., & Haden, C. A. (2007). Building understanding in under construction: Can preparatory activities support collaborative learning? Paper presented at the Meeting of the Cognitive Development Society.
  • Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 529541.
  • Wynn, K. (1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220251.
  • Yan, J., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (2003). A theory of rerepresentation in analogical matching. In R.Alterman & D.Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 12651270). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.