Categorization

J. L. Borges (1966) Other inquisitions 1937-1952. N. Y., Washington Square Press . Quoted in Rosch, E. (1978) Principles of
categorization. In Rosch & Lloyd, Cognition and categorization.
The following is a taxonomy of the animal kingdomattributed to an ancient chinese encyclopedia entitled the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge:

On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camels hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.

If these arent good categories, what are?

Ones used frequently in communication

Good categories
Rosch

1. Cognitive Economy
Reduce number of discriminations in world Cant have separate label for each thing Informativeness Knowing that something is an X tells us more

Good categories
1. Cognitive Economy
Reduce number of discriminations in world Cant have separate label for each thing Informativeness Knowing that something is an X tells us more

These goals are at odds

Good categories
1. Cognitive Economy
Reduce number of discriminations in world Yields few large categories Informativeness Yields many small categories

Good categories
1. Cognitive Economy
Reduce number of discriminations in world Yields few large categories Informativeness Yields many small categories

Where is trade-off optimal?

Good categories
1. Cognitive Economy
Reduce number of discriminations in world Cant have separate label for each thing Informativeness Knowing that something is an X tells us more

2. Reflect perceived structure of world

Correlated features feathers/beaks Utility for us

Vehicles
car
sedan station wagon

truck
garbage dump row

boat
motor

Furniture
chair
easy kitchen

lamp
table floor

rug
Chinese rag

Animals
snake
garter rattle

dog
Pekinese mutt milk

cow
beef

Two dimensions of categorization

Vertical: Level of abstraction or inclusiveness Horizontal: Organization within categories

Vertical
What are you sitting on? What is this I am wearing?

Vertical
What are you sitting on?
Chair, not auditorium chair or furniture

What is this I am wearing?

Sweater, not wool sweater or clothing

Preferred level of reference, why?

List features common to members of the following categories:

Apple Tools Shirt Furniture Green grapes Watermelon Shoes Denim pants

Preferred level of abstraction

Informativeness: Indexed by features Highest-->middle: Large increase Middle-->lowest: Small increase

Preferred level of abstraction

Informativeness: Indexed by features Highest-->middle: Large increase
Superordinate (vehicle) to basic level (car)

Middle-->lowest: Small increase

Basic level (car) to subordinate (4-door)

Basic Level distinguished by convergence of many cognitive tasks:

Common attributes Similarity of shapes Identifiability of shapes Imagery Motor programs Communication: labeling Communication: fastest verification Development: first labels in lexicon Development: categorization Language: earliest differentiation within language Language: most frequent, shortest labels Language: basic level terms neutral

Book review of pretentious novel:

And so, after putting away my 10 year old royal 470

manual and lining up my Mongol number 3 pencils on my Goldsmith Brothers Formica imitation-wood desk, I slide into my oversize squirrel-skin L. L. Bean slippers and shuffle off to the kitchen. There, holding Decades in my trembling right hand, I drop it, plunk , into my new Sears 20-gallon, celadon-green Permanex trash can.

Why do these measures converge at Basic Level?

Basic Level distinguished by convergence of many cognitive tasks:

Common attributes Similarity of shapes Identifiability of shapes Imagery Motor programs Communication: labeling Communication: fastest verification Development: first labels in lexicon Development: categorization Language: most frequent, shortest labels Language: basic level terms neutral Communication Language: earliest differentiation within language Behavior Appearance

Parts & Basic Level

Tversky & H e m e n w a y

Among attributes, parts proliferate at basic level

Parts form a bridge from appearance to behavior

Vertical Dimension of Categorization

Goals of categorization
Cognitive economy
Informative Reduce # discriminations

Reflect perceived structure of world

Basic level maximizes informativeness given # categories that must be kept in mind Many cognitive tasks converge on basic level Parts underlie convergence

What about categories of other things?

Scenes People Events

Horizontal Dimension of Categorization

Characterize internal structure of categories Knowledge representation of categories Meaning of categories

Early view of categorization

World is full of things varying on many dimensions Different cultures draw category boundaries in different places, color, corn, parrot, aunt If categories are unit of thought, then different cultures think differently

Early view of categorization

World is full of things varying on many dimensions Different cultures draw category boundaries in different places, color, corn, parrot, aunt If categories are unit of thought, then different cultures think differently BUT, cultures differ in environments, needs

Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis: Language shapes Thought

How do you separate culture from language?

Conditions for testing Whorf Hypothesis

Languages differ with respect to an attribute Physical, culture-free measure of attribute Non-linguistic dependent measure Prevalent attribute; culture independent

Conditions for testing Whorf Hypothesis

Languages differ with respect to an attribute Physical, culture-free measure of attribute Non-linguistic dependent measure Prevalent attribute; culture independent

Color

Codability of color predicts memory

Brown & Lenneberg

Group 1: codability: short, agreed-upon labels Group 2:

See color chip Select that color from array of colors Memory better for more codable colors

Codability of color predicts memory

Brown & Lenneberg

Group 1: codability: short, agreed-upon labels Group 2:

See color chip Select that color from array of colors Memory better for more codable colors

BUT: didnt test across languages

Codable colors
Berlin & Kay, De Valois

Likely to be prototypical colors across languages Languages differ on color boundaries, not centers Visual system especially sensitive to prototypical colors

Teaching color & shape names to Dani

Rosch

No names for colors or shapes; taught names Easy to learn prototypical colors, shapes Hard to learn peripheral colors, shapes

Whorf Hypothesis: 2 strikes against

Colors (shapes) that are highly codable are
Central members of categories Remembered/learned better across cultures

Perhaps these categories are universal But, hold on.not out yet

Define:
Vegetable Table Vehicle Cup

Rate how good each exemplar is of category:

FRUIT: pineapple, grapes, persimmon, apple VEHICLE: bus, jeep, skateboard, car FURNITURE: clock, table, couch, ottoman CLOTHING: belt, shoes, shirt, pants

Write examples of the following categories:

Odd Number Color Musical instrument Emotion Tool

Horizontal organization of categories

Definitions arent good Boundaries arent good Agreement on good examples, focal cases: Prototypes

Horizontal, internal structure of categories

Family resemblance Set of characteristic features
No one member has all the features Prototypical members have more of the features

Horizontal, internal structure of categories

Family resemblance Set of characteristic features
No one member has all the features Prototypical members have more of the features

Furniture: legs, seat, back--chair, couch, not rug Fruit: sweet, seeds, small--apple, not watermelon

Cognitive tasks supporting typicality

Verification RT: faster to say yes to car is vehicle than skateboard is vehicle Development: typical learned earlier Production: typical produced earlier Language: typical more frequently used

Structure of categories
Vertical: basic level is privileged/neutral Horizontal: think of categories in terms of
Typical examples Family resemblance

Rather than necessary and sufficient features

Whorf Hypothesis: Act III

Levinson

Some widely dispersed languages dont use left and right to describe locations; use NSEW

Whorf Hypothesis: Act III

Levinson

Some widely dispersed languages dont use left and right to describe locations; use NSEW Task
Study parade of animals, aardvark.giraffe.zebra Order mixed up, participant turned 180 degrees Put animals in order

Whorf Hypothesis: Act III

Levinson

Some widely dispersed languages dont use left and right to describe locations; use NSEW Task
Study parade of animals, aardvark.giraffe.zebra Order mixed up, participant turned 180 degrees Put animals in order

Results
Speakers of R/L languages line up animals L/R Speakers of no R/L languages line up animals NSEW

Whorf Hypothesis: Act III

Levinson

Some widely dispersed languages dont use left and right to describe locations; use NSEW Task
Study parade of animals, aardvark.giraffe.zebra Order mixed up, participant turned 180 degrees Put animals in order

Results
Speakers of R/L languages line up animals L/R Speakers of no R/L languages line up animals NSEW

BUT: implicit verbalization?