1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

It is a common assumption that basic level categories are cognitive units that share perceptual and linguistic characteristics at the same time. They are taken to be perceptual and functional gestalts designated by words that have a special status with regard to lexical development in children and frequency of occurrence and usefulness in everyday communication. Despite this connectedness of the two aspects of the basic level they do not go hand in hand. The perceptual side of basic level categorization is primary to language and exists independently of it. Basic level categories emerge naturally in the human perceptual-cognitive system as a result of our biological make-up in order to facilitate a proper functioning and orientation in our environment. The linguistic side relies on perception but is at the same time determined by several other factors. Basic level designations do not directly represent perceptual information because they contain additional conceptual knowledge reflecting cultural conceptualizations. This dissociation between the two sides can be seen on the one hand in the inconsistencies between perceptual qualities of entities and the way in which these entities are grouped together in linguistic basic level categories. On the other hand it is revealed through crosslinguistic discrepancies in category boundaries as delineated by words that are considered basic level terms and seemingly correspond in their semantics. An explanation of these phenomena requires that we do not handle the basic level as one phenomenon in which the perceptual and linguistic aspects merge but keep the two sides of the basic level apart while paying attention to their specific connections and influences on each other.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
2018-03-16
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archambault, A. , Gosselin, F. , & Schyns, P. G.
    (2000) A natural bias for the basic level?. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.585–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Atran, S. , Estin, P. , Coley, J. , & Medin, D.
    (1997) Generic species and basic levels: Essence and appearance in folk biology. Journal of Ethnobiology, 17(1), 17–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cangelosi, A. , & Harnad, S.
    (2001) The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication, 4, 117–142.10.1075/eoc.4.1.07can
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eoc.4.1.07can [Google Scholar]
  4. Collin, C. A. , & McMullen, P. A.
    (2005) Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(2), 354–364.10.3758/BF03206498
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206498 [Google Scholar]
  5. Crespo, B.
    (2013) Change in life, change in language. A semantic approach to the history of English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑653‑02894‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02894-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidoff, J.
    (2001) Language and perceptual categorization. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 382–387.10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01726‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01726-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Diesendruck, G.
    (2003) Categories for names or names for categories? The interplay between domain-specific conceptual structure and language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 759–787.10.1080/01690960344000116
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000116 [Google Scholar]
  8. Geeraerts, D.
    (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gallese, V. , & Lakoff, G.
    (2005) The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensorymotor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.10.1080/02643290442000310
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310 [Google Scholar]
  11. Glushko, R. J. , Maglio, P. P. , Matlock, T. , & Barsalou, L. W.
    (2008) Categorization in the wild. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 129–135.10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Golinkoff, R. M. , Shuff-Bailey, M. , Olguin, R. , & Ruan, W.
    (1995) Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of categorical scope. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 494–507.10.1037/0012‑1649.31.3.494
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.3.494 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodson, F. E.
    (2003) The evolution and function of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Győri, G.
    (1996) Historical aspects of categorization. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp.175–206). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110811421.175
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.175 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2000) Semantic change as linguistic interpretation of the world. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp.71–89). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.198.07gyo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.198.07gyo [Google Scholar]
  16. (2001) Symbolic cognition: its evolution and adaptive impact. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp.113–129). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2002) Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166.10.1515/cogl.2002.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.012 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2004) Semantic-lexical change at the crossroads between universals and linguistic relativity. A perspective from cognition and evolution. In W. Mihatsch & R. Steinberg (Eds.), Lexikalische Daten und Universalien des semantischen Wandels / Lexical data and universals of semantic change (pp.19–37). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Harnad, S.
    (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42, 335–346.10.1016/0167‑2789(90)90087‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2005) To cognize is to categorize. Cognition is categorization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp.20–43). Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50056‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50056-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kövecses, Z.
    (2006) Language, mind and culture. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lupyan, G.
    (2012a) What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol.57: (pp.255–297). Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑394293‑7.00007‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00007-8 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012b) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 54. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2016) The centrality of language in human cognition. Language Learning, 66(3), 516–553.10.1111/lang.12155
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12155 [Google Scholar]
  27. Malt, B. C.
    (2015) Words as names for objects, actions, relations, and properties. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), Handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp.320–333).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Malt, B. C. , Ameel, E. , Gennari, S. , Imai, M. , Saji, N. , & Majid, A.
    (2011) Do words reveal concepts?. In L. Carlson , T. F. Shipley & C. Hoelscher (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.519–524). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mohan, K. , & Arun, S. P.
    (2012) Similarity relations in visual search predict rapid visual categorization. Journal of Vision, 12, 19. doi: 10.1167/12.11.19.
     https://doi.org/10.1167/12.11.19 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nisbett, R. E. , & Miyamoto, Y.
    (2005) The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (10), 468–473.10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. oed Online
    oed Online March 2017 Oxford University Press.
  32. Pruden, S. M. , Hirsh-Pasek, K. , Golinkoff, R. M. , & Hennon, E. A.
    (2006) The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words through perceptual salience. Child Development, 77(2), 266–280.10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2006.00869.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00869.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Quiatt, D. , & Reynolds, V.
    (1993) Primate behaviour. Information, social knowledge, and the evolution of culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Regier, T. , Kemp, C. , & Kay, P.
    (2015) Word meanings across languages support efficient communication. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp.237–263). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rogers, T. T. , & McClelland, J. L.
    (2004) Semantic cognition: a parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA & London, England.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosch, E. H.
    (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp.27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rosch, E. H. , Mervis, C. B. , Gray, W. D. , Johnson, D. M. , & Boyes-Braem, P.
    (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.10.1016/0010‑0285(76)90013‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  38. Storms, S. , Speelman, D. , Geeraerts, D. , & Storms, G.
    (2015) Within-concept similarities in a taxonomy: a corpus linguistic approach. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 194–218.10.1017/langcog.2014.22
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.22 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tomasello, M.
    (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA & London, England: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tyler, L. K. , Moss, H. E. , Durrant-Peatfield, M. R. , & Levy, J. P.
    (2000) Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75, 195–231.10.1006/brln.2000.2353
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2353 [Google Scholar]
  41. Waxman, S. R. , & Lidz, J. L.
    (2006) Early word learning (pp.299–335). In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language. (6th edition) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Westermann, G. , & Mareschal, D.
    (2014) From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20120391. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0391
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0391 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1984) “Apples” are not a “kind of fruit”: The semantics of human categorization. American Ethnologist, 11(2), 313–328.10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00060
     https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00060 [Google Scholar]
  44. Zayan, R. , & Vauclair, J.
    (1998) Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition. Behavioural Processes, 42, 87–99.10.1016/S0376‑6357(97)00064‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(97)00064-8 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
Loading
What happens to the basic level in language?
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4, 171 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): basic level categories; categorization; cognitive function of language; linguistic relativity; perception

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error