Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys. Barner, D., Wood, J., Hauser, M., & Carey, S. Cognition, 107(2):603-22, 2008. doi abstract bibtex Set representations are explicitly expressed in natural language. For example, many languages distinguish between sets and subsets (all vs. some), as well as between singular and plural sets (a cat vs. some cats). Three experiments explored the hypothesis that these representations are language specific, and thus absent from the conceptual resources of non-linguistic animals. We found that rhesus monkeys spontaneously discriminate sets based on a conceptual singular-plural distinction. Under conditions that do not elicit comparisons based on approximate magnitudes or one-to-one correspondence, rhesus monkeys distinguished between singular and plural sets (1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 5), but not between two plural sets (2 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 5). These results suggest that set-relational distinctions are not a privileged part of natural language, and may have evolved in non-linguistic species to support domain general quantitative computations.
@Article{Barner2008,
author = {David Barner and Justin Wood and Marc Hauser and Susan Carey},
journal = {Cognition},
title = {Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys.},
year = {2008},
number = {2},
pages = {603-22},
volume = {107},
abstract = {Set representations are explicitly expressed in natural language.
For example, many languages distinguish between sets and subsets
(all vs. some), as well as between singular and plural sets (a cat
vs. some cats). Three experiments explored the hypothesis that these
representations are language specific, and thus absent from the conceptual
resources of non-linguistic animals. We found that rhesus monkeys
spontaneously discriminate sets based on a conceptual singular-plural
distinction. Under conditions that do not elicit comparisons based
on approximate magnitudes or one-to-one correspondence, rhesus monkeys
distinguished between singular and plural sets (1 vs. 2 and 1 vs.
5), but not between two plural sets (2 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs.
5). These results suggest that set-relational distinctions are not
a privileged part of natural language, and may have evolved in non-linguistic
species to support domain general quantitative computations.},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.010},
keywords = {Animals, Appetitive Behavior, Choice Behavior, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Language Development, Macaca mulatta, Male, Mathematics, Pattern Recognition, Problem Solving, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Set (Psychology), Visual, 18164282},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"3F8jKcfacQtp38a7j","bibbaseid":"barner-wood-hauser-carey-evidenceforanonlinguisticdistinctionbetweensingularandpluralsetsinrhesusmonkeys-2008","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-05-01T23:57:30.860Z","title":"Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys.","author_short":["Barner, D.","Wood, J.","Hauser, M.","Carey, S."],"year":2008,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["David"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Barner"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Justin"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wood"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Marc"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hauser"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Susan"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Carey"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cognition","title":"Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys.","year":"2008","number":"2","pages":"603-22","volume":"107","abstract":"Set representations are explicitly expressed in natural language. For example, many languages distinguish between sets and subsets (all vs. some), as well as between singular and plural sets (a cat vs. some cats). Three experiments explored the hypothesis that these representations are language specific, and thus absent from the conceptual resources of non-linguistic animals. We found that rhesus monkeys spontaneously discriminate sets based on a conceptual singular-plural distinction. Under conditions that do not elicit comparisons based on approximate magnitudes or one-to-one correspondence, rhesus monkeys distinguished between singular and plural sets (1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 5), but not between two plural sets (2 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 5). These results suggest that set-relational distinctions are not a privileged part of natural language, and may have evolved in non-linguistic species to support domain general quantitative computations.","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.010","keywords":"Animals, Appetitive Behavior, Choice Behavior, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Language Development, Macaca mulatta, Male, Mathematics, Pattern Recognition, Problem Solving, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Set (Psychology), Visual, 18164282","bibtex":"@Article{Barner2008,\n author = {David Barner and Justin Wood and Marc Hauser and Susan Carey},\n journal = {Cognition},\n title = {Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys.},\n year = {2008},\n number = {2},\n pages = {603-22},\n volume = {107},\n abstract = {Set representations are explicitly expressed in natural language.\n\tFor example, many languages distinguish between sets and subsets\n\t(all vs. some), as well as between singular and plural sets (a cat\n\tvs. some cats). Three experiments explored the hypothesis that these\n\trepresentations are language specific, and thus absent from the conceptual\n\tresources of non-linguistic animals. We found that rhesus monkeys\n\tspontaneously discriminate sets based on a conceptual singular-plural\n\tdistinction. Under conditions that do not elicit comparisons based\n\ton approximate magnitudes or one-to-one correspondence, rhesus monkeys\n\tdistinguished between singular and plural sets (1 vs. 2 and 1 vs.\n\t5), but not between two plural sets (2 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs.\n\t5). These results suggest that set-relational distinctions are not\n\ta privileged part of natural language, and may have evolved in non-linguistic\n\tspecies to support domain general quantitative computations.},\n doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.010},\n keywords = {Animals, Appetitive Behavior, Choice Behavior, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Language Development, Macaca mulatta, Male, Mathematics, Pattern Recognition, Problem Solving, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Set (Psychology), Visual, 18164282},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Barner, D.","Wood, J.","Hauser, M.","Carey, S."],"key":"Barner2008","id":"Barner2008","bibbaseid":"barner-wood-hauser-carey-evidenceforanonlinguisticdistinctionbetweensingularandpluralsetsinrhesusmonkeys-2008","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Animals","Appetitive Behavior","Choice Behavior","Concept Formation","Discrimination Learning","Female","Language Development","Macaca mulatta","Male","Mathematics","Pattern Recognition","Problem Solving","Psycholinguistics","Semantics","Set (Psychology)","Visual","18164282"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["evidence","non","linguistic","distinction","between","singular","plural","sets","rhesus","monkeys","barner","wood","hauser","carey"],"keywords":["animals","appetitive behavior","choice behavior","concept formation","discrimination learning","female","language development","macaca mulatta","male","mathematics","pattern recognition","problem solving","psycholinguistics","semantics","set (psychology)","visual","18164282"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["gte2spuWwAwpK7Gz5","xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE"]}