Everyday language routinely and productively crosses ontological categories¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Matter predicates are commonly and comprehensibly applied to non-material entities such as time, technology, and ceasefires in everyday speech. → Ayush Gupta 2008

Evidence¶

Ayush Gupta 2008¶

Ayush Gupta, David Hammer, Edward F. Redish. (2008). The Case for Dynamic Models of Learners' Ontologies in Physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/hlns20

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The authors' linguistic analysis of everyday expressions, drawing on Lakoff and Johnson's work on ontological metaphors, shows that matter predicates are applied to non-material entities without being noticed as anomalous. They note that "in everyday language it does not seem nonsensical" to do so, and that such crossing helps rather than hinders understanding.

"in everyday language it does not seem nonsensical for us to apply matter predicates (infuse, litter, broken, and quantification-in-molecular-units) to non-material entities (technology, ceasefire, time)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Material difficulty is not determined solely by element number and interactivity — related
• Neither blood circulation nor diffusion has an inherent correct ontology; predicates from both direct and emergent process categories apply to each — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Expert physicists apply matter-based predicates to non-material concepts in professional discourse — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Novices can and do reason across ontological categories in everyday and scientific contexts — a broader claim this one bears on
• Experts' ontological choices about the same physical phenomenon are context-dependent — a narrower finding that bears on this claim