연구동향 분석
박사

개념의 구조와 조합성 문제 = Structure of Concept and The Compositionality Problem

조영아 2018년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 개념의 구조와 조합성 문제 = Structure of Concept and The Compositionality Problem' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 개념의 구조
  • 애완물고기문제
  • 원형 이론
  • 조합성
  • 추론적 의미
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
51 0

0.0%

' 개념의 구조와 조합성 문제 = Structure of Concept and The Compositionality Problem' 의 참고문헌

  • 표상의 언어에서 추론의 언어로
    이병덕 성균관대학교 출판부 [2017]
  • 표상 : 인지과학의 기초에 관한 연구
    Jerry, A, F. 서울, 민음사 [1991]
  • 의미론의 길잡이
    임지룡 서울, 한국문화사 [2013]
  • 원형이론과 의미의 범주화
    임지룡 국어학 23. 41-68쪽 [1993]
  • 어휘부의 존재 방식과 단어 형성-연결주의(connectionism) 관점에서
    나은미 한국어 의미학, 제20호, 한국어 의미학 회, 325-345쪽 [2006]
  • 과학혁명의 구조
    토마스 쿤 까치글방 [2013]
  • 과학철학입문
    루돌프 카르납 서울, 서광사 [1993]
  • 과학철학의 이해
    래디먼, 제임스 서울, 이학사 [2003]
  • 과학에서의 법칙과 이론에 대한 고찰
    박승배 범한철학, 제52집, 범한철학회, 257-279쪽 [2009]
  • 개념과 범주화, 아카넷
    신현정 서울 [2000]
  • “한갓 구현이 아닌 구성적 구조”
    최훈 인지과학, 6(1), 5-30쪽 [1995]
  • “필연성과 오류가능성”
    이병덕 철학 96집, 한국철학회, 109-132 쪽 [2008]
  • “포도어의 심적 표상론”
    정성호 철학 , 한국철학회, 제53권 0호, 237-284쪽 [1997]
  • “통합적 인지 모형의 가능성”
    이영의 과학기술학연구, 한국과학기술 학회, 399-422쪽 [2001]
  • “추론주의는 포도와 르포오의 비판들을 피할 수 있는가?”
    이병덕 철학적 분석, 제12호, 한국분석철학회, 47-76쪽 [2005]
  • “연결주의와 구성적 구조”
    최훈 철학논구, 서울대학교, 229-275 쪽 [1994]
  • “맥락주의와 ‘공유된 내용’의 문제.”
    강진호 철학적분석, 제27 호, 한국분석철학회, 서울, 31-57쪽 [2013]
  • “마이어와 데이빗슨”
    최신한 철학 제93집, 한국철학회, 273-300 쪽 [2007]
  • “다수실현, 국지적 논변, 그리고 환원”
    이종왕 범한철학, 범한철학 회, 325-346쪽 [2005]
  • “개념의 개념 : 퍼트남과 버지의 외재주의”
    고인석 철학논총, 새한 철학회, 57-80쪽 [2015]
  • “‘가족유사성’의 의미와 그 배경.”
    신상형 철학논총, 새한철학회, 135-168쪽 [2001]
  • “SymCSN : 유연한 지식 표현 및 추론을 위 한 기호-연결주의 모델”
    김명원 노희섭 안홍섭 인지과학, 한국인지과학회, 10(4), pp. 71-82 [1999]
  • Wisniewski, E. J. & Medin, D. L., 1994, “On the Interaction of Theory and Data in Concept Learning”, Cognitive Science, 18(2), pp.221-281.
  • Weiskopf, D. A., 2011, “Concepts, Theory-Theory Of”, In James Fieser & Bradley Dowden (eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Tversky, A., 1977,“Features of Similarity”, Psychological Review, 84(4), pp.327-352.
  • Taylor, J. R., 1989, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford University Press.
  • Szab , Z. G., 2013, "Compositionality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/compositionality/>.
  • Sellars, W., 1954, “Some Reflections on Language Games”, Philosophy of Science, 21 (3), pp.204-228.
  • Rosch, E., 1978, “Principles of Categorization”, In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.27-48.
  • Rosch, E., 1976, “Basic Objects in Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), pp.382–439.
  • Rosch, E., 1975, “Cognitive representation of semantic categories”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), pp.192-233.
  • Rosch, E., 1973, “Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 4:328-350.
  • Rosch, E. & Simpson, C. & Miller, R. S., 1976, “Structural bases of typicality effects”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), pp. 491-502.
  • Robbins, P., 2005, “The Myth of Reverse Compositionality”, Philosophical Studies, 125(2), pp.251-275.
  • Quine, W. V. O.(1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review, 60(1), pp.20–43.
  • Putnam, H., 1973, “Meaning and Reference”, Journal of Philosophy, 70 (19), pp.699-711.
  • Prentice, D. A. & Mille, D. T., 2007, “Psychological Essentialism of Human Categories”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), pp.202-206.
  • Patterson, D., 2005, “Learnability and Compositionality”, Mind and Language, 20(3), pp. 26–352.
  • Park, Y., 2009, On Fodor's concept nativism, THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Ph.D. Thesis.
  • Pagin, P., 2010, “Compositionality I: Definitions and Variants”, Philosophy Compass, 5(3), pp.250-264.
  • Osherson, D. N. & Smith, E. E., 1988, “Combining Prototypes: A Selective Modification Model”, Cognitive Science, 12(4), pp.485-527.
  • Osherson, D. N. & Smith, E. E., 1981, “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts”, Cognition, 9(1), pp.35-58.
  • Mizrahi, M., 2014, “Essentialism: Metaphysical or Psychological?”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 14(40), pp. 65-72.
  • Medin, D., 1989, “Concepts and conceptual structure”, American Psychologist, 44, no. 12, 1469-1481.
  • Medin, D., & Ortony, A., 1989, “Psychological essentialism”, In Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. S.Vosniadou. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mccullagh, M., 2011, “How to use a concept you reject”, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 243, pp.293-319.
  • McGinn, C. (1982) “Rigid Designation and Semantic Value”, Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), pp.97-115.
  • Margolis, E. (1998) “How to Acquire a Concept”, Mind and Language, 13 (3), pp.347-369.
  • Margolis, E. & Laurence, S., Spring 2014 Edition, "Concepts", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/concepts/>.
  • Malt, B. C. & Smith, E. E., 1984, “Correlated properties in natural categories”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, pp.250-269.
  • Machery, E., 2009, Doing Without Concepts, Oxford University Press.
  • Livanios, V., 2012, “Exploring the Metaphysics of Nomic Relations”, Acta Analytica, 27(3), pp.247-264.
  • Linda, W., 2014, “Types and Tokens”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/types-tokens/>.
  • Lazareva, O. F. & Wasserman, E. A., 2010, “Category Learning and Concept Learning in Birds. In Denis Mareschal”, Paul Quinn & Stephen E. G. Lea (eds.), The Making of Human Concepts. OUP Oxford, pp.151-172.
  • Laurence, S. & Margolis, E., 1999, “Concepts and Cognitive Science”, In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings, MIT, pp.3—81.
  • Lasersohn, P., 2012, “Contextualism and compositionality”, Linguist and Philos, 35, pp.171–189.
  • Lakoff, G., 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Thing: What Catergories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press.
  • Kwong, J. M. C., 2007, “Is Conceptual Atomism a Plausible Theory of Concepts?”, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 45(3), pp.413-434.
  • Kaye, L. J., 1995, “The Languages of Thought”, Philosophy of Science, 62(1).
  • Kaplan A.S, & Murphy G.L., 1999, “The acquisition of category structure in unsupervised learning”, Mem Cognit, 27(4), pp.699-712.
  • Kamp, H. &Partee, B., 1995, “Prototype Theory and Compositionality”, Cognition, 57(2), pp.129-191.
  • Jylkk , J. A., 2009, “Why Fodor's Theory of Concepts Fails”, Minds and Machines, 19(1), pp.25-46.
  • Jones, Jan-Erik, Fall 2014 Edition,“Locke on Real Essence”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/real-essence/>.
  • Johnson, K., 2004, “On the Systematicity of Language and Thought”, Journal of Philosophy, 101 (3), pp.111-139.
  • Janssen, T. M. V., 2001, “Frege, Contextuality and Compositionality”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(1), pp.115-136.
  • Jackman, Henry, Fall 2014 Edition, "Meaning Holism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/meaning-holism/>.
  • Hornik, R., Risenhoover, N. & Gunnar, M., 1987,“The Effects of Maternal Positive, Neutral, and Negative Affective Communications on Infant Responses to New Toys”, Child Development, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 937-944.
  • Hampton, J. A., 2006, “Concept as Prototypes”, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, pp.79 – 113.
  • Hampton, J. A., 2000, “Concepts and Prototypes”, Mind and Language, 15(2-3), pp.299-307.
  • Hampton, J. A., 1996, “Conceptual Combination”. In K. Lamberts and D. Shanks (Eds.) Knowledge, Concepts and Categories, London: UCL Press.
  • Hampton, J. A., 1988, “Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), pp.12-32.
  • Hampton, J. A., 1987, “Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions”, Memory and Cognition, 15, pp.55-71.
  • Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M., 1994, “The theory theory”, In L. Hirschfield, & S. Gelman (Eds), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, pp. 257-293. xiv, 516, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Girola, L. D., 2012, “The Myth of Concept Publicity”, Ideas Y Valores, 61(148), pp.101-113.
  • Gelman, S. a. and Coley, J. D. and Gottfried, G. M., 1994, “Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories”, In Mapping the Mind: Domain-Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. Hirschfeld, Lawrence A; Gelman, Susan A, Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press.
  • Gelder, T. V., 1990, “Compositionality: A Connectionist Variation on a Classical Theme”, Cognitive Science, 14(3), pp.355-84.
  • Frege, G. & Beaney, M. (eds.), 1997, The Frege Reader, Blackwell Publishers, pp.151-172.
  • Fodor, J. A., 2008, Lot 2: The Language of Thought Revisited, Oxford University Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 2001, “Language, Thought and Compositionality”, Mind and Language, 16(1), pp.1-15.
  • Fodor, J. A., 2000, “Replies to Critics”, Mind and Language, 15(2-3), pp.350-374.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1998a, Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong, Oxford University Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1994, The Elm and the Expert, MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1990, A Theory of Content and Other Essays, MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1987, Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind, MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1984, “Semantics, Wisconsin Style”, Synthese, 59(3), pp.231-50.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1983, The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J. A., 1975, The Language of Thought, Harvard University Press.
  • Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 2002, The Compositionality Papers, Oxford University Press.
  • Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 2001b, “Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory”, Ratio, 14(4), pp.350–368, Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 2002.
  • Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 2001a, “Brandom’s Burdens: Compositionality and Inferentialism”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(2), pp.465-481, Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 2002.
  • Fodor, J. A. and Lepore, E., 1996, “The Red Herring and the Pet Fish: Why Concepts Still Can't be Prototypes”, Cognition, 58, pp.253-270.
  • Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z.W., 2015, Minds without Meanings, MIT press.
  • Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W., 1988, “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture”, Cognition, 28(1-2), pp.3-71.
  • Fodor, J. A. & Lepore, E., 1999, All at Sea in Semantic Space: Churchland on Meaning Similarity, Journal of Philosophy, 96(8), pp.381-403.
  • Fodor, J. A. & LePore, E., 1992, Holism: A Shopper's Guide, Blackwell.
  • Fodor, 1998b, “There Are No Recognitional Concepts, Not Even RED. Part 2: The Plot Thickens”, In his In Critical Condition, pp.49-62, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Field, J., 2003, Psycholinguistics: A Resource Book for Students, Routledge.
  • Dresner, E., 2012, “Meaning Holism”, Philosophy Compass, 7(9), pp.611-619.
  • Donnellan, K. S., 1966, “Reference and Definite Descriptions”, Philosophical Review, 75(3), pp.281-304.
  • Daley, K., 2010, “The Structure of Lexical Concepts”, Philosophical Studies, 150(3), pp.349 – 372.
  • Cohen, B. & Murphy, G. L., 1984, “Models of Concepts”, Cognitive Science, 8(1), pp.27-58.
  • Churchland, P. M., 1988,“Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 55, No. 2., pp.167-187.
  • Carey, S., 1985, Conceptual change in childhood, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E., 2005, Insensitive Semantics. A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Bybee, J. L., 1988, “Morphology as lexical organization”. In M. Hammond and M. Noonan, editors, Theoretical morphology, pp.119-41. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Brandom, R., 2000, Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism, Harvard University Press.
  • Brandom, R., 1994, Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press.
  • Braisby, N., Franks, B., & Hampton, J. A., 1996, “Essentialism, word use, and concepts”, Cognition, 59, pp.247–274.
  • Bermudez, J. L., 2005, Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge.
  • Bartsch, K. & Wellman, H., 1989, “Young Children's Attribution of Action to Beliefs and Desires”, Child Development, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.946-964.
  • Baptista, L. & Rast, E. H., 2010, Meaning and Context, Peter Lang
  • Balashov, Y., 1994, “Duhem, Quine, and the Multiplicity of Scientific Tests”, Philosophy of Science, 61 (4), pp.608-628.
  • Aydede, M., Fall 2015 Edition“The Language of Thought Hypothesis”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/language-thought/>.
  • Allman, J., 2001, “Metaphor and Davidson's Theory of Interpretation”, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 39 (1), pp.1-22.
  • Adams, F. and Aizawa, K., 2010, “Causal Theories of Mental Content”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/contentcausal/>.
  • Abbott, B., 2000, “Fodor and Lepore on Meaning Similarity and Compositionality”, Journal of Philosophy, 97 (8), pp.454-455.
  • , 과학의 구조 : 과학적 설명 논리의 문제들 1,
    , 전영삼 번역, 네이글 지음 아카넷, 서울 [2001]
  • , “이론-이론과 조합성 문제”, 철학논총 제85집
    조영아 새한철학회, 391-418쪽 [2016]
  • , ,“원형이론과 조합성 문제”, 철학연구
    조영아 대한철학회, 제132집, 151-184쪽 [2014]
  • , , “정보적 의미론과 조합성 문제”, 철학적분석
    조영아 한국분석철학회, 32호, 149-170쪽 [2015]
  • "의미론에서 화용론으로: 브랜덤의 추론주의에 나타난 표상개 념”, 철학 65
    이유선 한국철학회, 183-208쪽 [2000]