Structure of the Dissertation--论文代写范文精选

如何引用沟通指导注意特性之间的关系和行动。此外引用表达式可能会呈现这样的关系,归为隐含判断，提供明确的规则。下面的essay代写范文进行阐述。

Abstract 
What follows is a detailed report of this investigation, organized into four chapters. In the Literature Review chapter, I attempt to integrate findings and constructs from two research traditions: cognitive research on category learning, both in general and with an explicit focus on lexically labeled categories, and psycho-linguistic research on conversation and referential communication. From this integrated review, I glean three hypotheses: referential communication generates conceptual homogeneity (H3) and enhances indirect category learning (H1), though simple rules are better learned than complex relationships (H2). 

The Method chapter provides details on the experimental design that I used to test these hypotheses, as well as on how and why I collected and analyzed the various data. Next, in the Results chapter, I highlight how the learning data and the linguistic data supported the hypotheses. Finally, I interpret the major findings in the Discussion chapter. In particular, I focus on how referential communication directs attention to relationships between features (perceptual and functional) and action. In addition, I argue that referring expressions may render such relationships more memorable and may provide explicit “rules” for otherwise implicit judgements. Finally, I speculate on whether communication pushes “public” conceptualizations and publiclyformed “private” conceptualizations towards a limited range of widely shareable conceptual structures.

LITERATURE REVIEW 
When faced with a new or unfamiliar joint activity, communicating actors quickly converge on ad hoc referential conventions (Garrod & Anderson, 1987; Brennan & Clark, 1996; et al.). These ad hoc conventions entail a system of shared or “public” categories of the objects, actions, and events in the activity environment. The shareability of a convention derives from the extent to which it minimizes the joint cognitive effort of sharing attention and intentions towards those objects, actions, and events (cf., Freyd, 1983). In the wild, shareable conventions emerge from the coupled evolution of both the linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects of the various “public” categories during conversationally driven joint activity. I consider this evolution from the perspective of two research traditions: cognitive research on “private” category learning, both in general and with an explicit focus on lexically labeled categories; and psycho-linguistic research on conversation and referential communication. Integrating these traditions yields hypotheses about the “public” category learning entailed in the emergence of shareable conventions that one could not derive from either tradition alone.

Plausible Constraints on Human Category 
Learning While conventions such as driving on the left-hand versus right-hand side of the road may seem arbitrary, one rarely finds an entirely arbitrary referential convention. As a system of “public” categorizations, a referential convention is subject to constraints on 9 the human conceptual system. Some constraints originate from outside human beings. For example, both the natural and artificial worlds exhibit structural regularities (e.g., Berlin, Breedlove, & Raven, 1966; Simon, 1956). Other constraints originate from within human beings. These include, limits on memory and selective attention (e.g., Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins, 1961), the limits of embodiment (e.g., Gallese & Lakoff, 2005), and the limits of personal experience (e.g., Murphy & Medin, 1985), among others.

Structural Constraints 
Among the various constraints addressed by the categorization and decisionmaking literature, the structure of the features defining categories of objects, actions, and events appears to exert the most pervasive or, at least, most discernible influence on category learning and use (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Braem, 1976; Corter & Gluck, 1992; Simon, 1956; Todd & Gigerenzer, 2007). For example, population-wide regularities in how individuals name and classify various natural kinds, including colors (e.g, Kay et al., 2007 [2003]), kinship (e.g, Goodenough, 1965; Romney & D’Andrade, 1964; Romney, Boyd, Moore, Batchelder, & Brazill, 1996), as well as plants and animals (e.g, Berlin, Breadlove & Raven, 1973; Diamond, 1966; Bulmer, 1967; Hunn, 1977), appear to reflect statistical regularities in the environment (Berlin et al., 1966; Rosch et al., 1976). This concordance holds even after one accounts for the arbitrary distinctions within any particular population-wide convention (Malt, Sloman, & Gennari, 2003a, 2003b; Malt, Sloman, Gennari, Shi, & Wang, 1999).（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)