Thinking about our unit on Language Development: In English, Jujubean (Dr. Baron’s pet) is called “dog” but in Russian she’s called “cobaka”. This difference is an example of
[ Select ]
connectionist
visually based retrieval
generativity
symbols
pragmatics
core-knowledge
metalinguistics
constructivism
nativist
whole object bias
mutual exclusivity
information-processing
phonemes
rehearsal
recursion
task analysis
phonemes
. (2 pts)

Question

Thinking about our unit on Language Development: In English, Jujubean (Dr. Baron’s pet) is called “dog” but in Russian she’s called “cobaka”. This difference is an example of 
[ Select ]
connectionist
visually based retrieval
generativity
symbols
pragmatics
core-knowledge
metalinguistics
constructivism
nativist
whole object bias
mutual exclusivity
information-processing
phonemes
rehearsal
recursion
task analysis
phonemes
 . (2 pts)

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The prompt asks us to consider a language development scenario: in English, Jujubean is called “dog,” while in Russian she is called “cobaka.” This illustrates how different languages assign different arbitrary labels to the same object or concept. Now, we need to map this idea to the given options.

First, note that when a language uses different labels for the same thing across languages, it highlights the symbolic nature of language: words are arbitrary symbols that stand for concepts or objects, and there is no inherent reason a particular sound sequence must correspond to a particular referent beyond convention within a language community. This points toward the concept of symbols as the correct overarching category in this context.

Option-by-option analysis:
- connectionist: This refers to a theory of cognitive processing emphasizing distributed, parallel processing across networks. The example provided (arbitrary naming across languages) doesn’t directly invoke a connectionist processing model, so this is not the best fit.
- visually based retrieval: This suggests memory retrieval based on visual imagery. The scenario is about linguistic labels across languages, not visual recall, so this option misses the core point.
- generativity: While generativity is key to language (the ability to create novel utterances), the specific example focuses on the arbitrary labeling of objects across languages rather than the productive aspect of language creation, so it’s not the most direct fit.
- symbols: This matches the core idea that words function as arbitrary symbols that map to concepts, and that different languages assign different labels to the same object. This option captures the fundamental concept illustrated by the example.
- pragmatics: Pragmatics concerns how context influences meaning in communication. The example centers on arbitrary symbol assignment, not on contextual use or communicative intent, so pragmatics is not the primary fit.
- core-knowledge: This broad term refers to foundational, possibly innate knowledge domains. It doesn’t specifically address the arbitrariness of linguistic labels across languages.
- metalinguistics: Metalinguistic awareness involves thinking about language itself (e.g., recognizing that words are symbols). While related, the concrete example of different labels across languages most directly points to the symbolic nature of language, not the meta-level reflection on language.
- constructivism: A theoretical stance about knowledge construction. It doesn’t specifically explain the cross-language labeling phenomenon.
- nativist: Refers to innatist positions about language faculty. It’s not a direct label for the cross-language symbol mapping demonstration.
- whole object bias: A cognitive bias in word learning where children map a new word to the entire object rather than a part. Not directly related to cross-language naming of objects.
- mutual exclusivity: A constraint where children assume objects have only one label per language, which is not the central point here and may even conflict with cross-language labeling realities.
- information-processing: A broad cognitive framework; not specifically addressing the arbitrariness of symbol–referent mapping across languages.
- phonemes: The smallest units of sound; this example doesn’t focus on phonology but on label assignment across languages, so phonemes are not the central concept here.
- rehearsal: A memory strategy; irrelevant to the linguistic arbitrariness illustrated.
- recursion: A structural property of language; while important, it doesn’t capture the specific cross-language labeling phenomenon.
- task analysis: A methodological approach; not directly related to the linguistic principle at play.
- phonemes (again): Reiteration of the phonology option; not the focal concept here.
- . (2 pts): This seems to be a formatting artifact rather than a substantive option.

In summary, among the provided options, the one that best captures the idea illustrated by the cross-language labeling difference is symbols, since it explicitly denotes that words are symbolic representations that can vary across languages while referring to the same underlying concept.

However, since the question listing did not include concrete answer options for selection (the answer_options field is empty and the answer field indicates awaiting inputs), there is no explicit choice to select. The missing option set prevents a definitive multiple-choice selection in this instance.

PSYC_V 315 921 2025SS NEW PSYC 315 Final Exam (LockDown Browser required)- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Which is TRUE about language development?

The usual order of the development of spoken language in an infant is _____.

Britta has begun repeating syllables such as "da-da-da-da" and "me-me-me-me-me." Britta is in the _____ stage of language development.

Given what we learned about language development, should we be concerned if by 21 months a child is not uttering any words?

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单