Levels of categorization

1. Levels of categorization 　

LEVELS OF CATEGORIZATION
Prof. V.I. Zabotkina

2. Levels of categorization 　

LEVELS OF CATEGORIZATION
Superordinate
Basic
Subordinate

3. Basic level categories of organisms and concrete objects

BASIC LEVEL CATEGORIES OF
ORGANISMS AND CONCRETE OBJECTS
'Scientific classifications may be fascinating in their
complexity and rigidity, but are they really suitable
for human categorization?
So-called folk taxonomies suggest that we approach
hierarchies from the centre, that we concentrate on
basic level categories such as dogs and cars and that
our hierarchies are anchored in these basic level
categories.

4. Basic level categories of organisms and concrete objects

BASIC LEVEL CATEGORIES OF
ORGANISMS AND CONCRETE OBJECTS
All cognitive categories are connected with each other
in a kind of hierarchical relationship.
Dogs are regarded as superordinate to terriers, and
terriers as superordinate to Scotch terriers and bull
terriers; looking in the other direction, dogs are seen
as subordinate to mammals, and mammals as
subordinate to animals.

5.

The
principle underlying this hierarchical structure is the
notion of class inclusion, i.e. the view that the superordinate
class includes all items on the subordinate level.
The class 'animal' includes not only mammals, but birds and
reptiles as well.
On the next level, the class 'mammal' comprises not only dogs,
but cats, cows, lions, elephants and mice.
Still further down, the class 'dog' includes terriers, bulldogs,
alsatians, poodles, and various other kinds of dogs.
Similar hierarchies exist for man-made objects like vehicles,
which embrace cars, vans, bicycles, sledges, etc., and their
respective subdivisions.
All in all, it seems that the whole range of concrete entities in
the world can be hierarchically ordered according to the
principle of class inclusion. Starting from this notion of
hierarchy, the detailed classifications (or taxonomies) which
have been developed in many scientific fields may simply appear
to be an extension of the basic human faculty of categorization.

6.

All in all, it seems that the whole range of concrete entities in
the world can be hierarchically ordered according to the
principle of class inclusion. Starting from this notion of
hierarchy, the detailed classifications (or taxonomies) which
have been developed in many scientific fields may simply appear
to be an extension of the basic human faculty of categorization.

7. Superordinate categories

SUPERORDINATE CATEGORIES
'If basic level categories are exceptional in many ways, how
do other types of cognitive categories differ from them? Are
other categories just 10 be regarded as poor relations or do
they have specific functions for which they are uniquely
equipped and which determine their category structure?
And how does the status of these categories affect our
notion of hierarchy? These questions will be discussed for
superordinate categories first, where they seem to be most
pressing.

8. Superordinate categories

SUPERORDINATE CATEGORIES
When choosing the cognitive categories for their investigation
of prototypes, early researchers did not consciously distinguish
between basic level categories and other kinds of categories.
Quite naturally, they selected the categories that promised the
best results for the demonstration of the individual effects of
the prototype structure they had in mind.
Gestalt characteristics of categories and the fuzziness of category
boundaries could best be illustrated with basic level categories
like CUP and BOWL. Goodness-of-example ratings and
attribute listings involving family resemblances worked well
with cognitive categories such as FRUIT, FURNITURE and
VEHICLE, which are commonly placed on a superordinate
level. Yet when basic level categories were contrasted with the
superordinate (and subordinate) categories in the last section,
it became clear that an ideal prototype structure can only be
found on the basic level and that, seen from this angle,
superordinate categories are deficient in many ways.

9. The structure of superordinate categories and the notion of parasitic categorization

THE STRUCTURE OF SUPERORDINATE CATEGORIES
AND THE NOTION OF PARASITIC CATEGORIZATION
To start with the most obvious deficiency of superordinate
categories, there is no common overall shape and, consequently,
no common underlying gestalt that applies to all category
members. However, this does not mean that we cannot approach
the objects categorized as FRUIT or FURNITURE or VEHICLE
holistically. Consider what you would do if you were asked to
provide a picture of these categories. You would probably draw an
orange, a banana, etc., to illustrate FRUIT, or a chair, a table and
a bed for FURNITURE, or a car, a bus and a motorbike for
VEHICLE. In other words, you would 'borrow' the gestalt
properties of the superordinate category from the basic level
categories involved — a first case of what will be
called parasitic categorization.

10. The structure of superordinate categories and the notion of parasitic categorization

THE STRUCTURE OF SUPERORDINATE CATEGORIES
AND THE NOTION OF PARASITIC CATEGORIZATION
This principle of parasitic categorization is also reflected in the
way in which attributes are used in categorizing experiments.
Informants tend to list few category-wide attributes for
superordinate categories. Indeed, in the case of FURNITURE,
Rosch's informants did not suggest a single common attribute.
The most likely reason is that the common attributes available for
FURNITURE are so general and unobtrusive that informants do
not find them worth mentioning — think of 'large movable objects'
or 'things that make a house or flat suitable for living in'. Apart
from category-wide attributes, informants offer the names of basic
level categories which are members of the superordinate category
and, in addition, attributes of these basic level categories. In the
case of FURNITURE this means that informants will name the
basic level categories CHAIR, TABLE, BED, etc. and add a
number of attributes from the attribute inventory of these
cognitive categories, e.g. 'has legs', 'has a back', 'used to sit on' for
CHAIR, etc.

11.

12. Subordinate categories

SUBORDINATE CATEGORIES
'We use subordinate terms like poodle or terrier and not basic
level terms like dog when we want to be more specific. This
specificity determines the way in which we categorize on the
subordinate level, and it is also responsible for the fact that
subordinate categories are often expressed by compounds and
other composite terms. .
The most frequent type of lexical category apart from basic level
categories are subordinate categories. There are many kinds of
dogs, of flowers, of cars and boats, of beds and tables, and all of
them can be understood in terms of cognitive categories. In some
cases, the structure of these subordinate categories is very
similar to the structure of basic level categories. Categories like
POODLE, TERRIER or ROSE have identifiable gestalts, they are
constructed round prototypes, have good and bad members, can
muster substantial lists of attributes and are expressed by simple
words. However, when we follow Brown (1990) and turn to more
extreme examples of subordinate categories, the differences
become more marked.

13. Subordinates: characteristics of category structure

SUBORDINATES: CHARACTERISTICS
OF CATEGORY STRUCTURE
If we stick to flowers, but replace ROSE with DANDELION or DAISY,
we still have a fairly clear gestalt perception, including the holistic
impression of the overall shape, the jagged leaves, the yellow blossom of
dandelions or the distinction between the yellow disc and the white rays
typical of daisies. The difference between these categories and a category
such as ROSE becomes obvious when we start looking for prototypes of
dandelions or daisies.
How does an ordinary language user, someone who is neither a botanist
nor a lexicologist, single out a perfect dandelion or daisy? How does he or
she describe the difference between this perfect specimen and a poor one?
Indeed, the average language user will hardly attempt to distinguish
prototypical dandelions and daisies from lesser category members, both
in terms of individual examples and varieties. Moving from natural kinds
to man-made objects, such as coins, we find that subordinate categories
like DIME or QUARTER also do not yield prototypes that can be easily
distinguished from more marginal examples. All dimes and quarters are
very much alike, and can be regarded as equally good examples of the
category.
The reason is not that real-life examples of dandelions, daisies, dimes or
quarters are in fact identical. The differences in shape or colour (in the
case of dandelions and daisies) or in newness and gloss (for dimes and
quarters) which might emerge in a thorough scrutiny are simply
irrelevant for everyday categorization and do not influence our holistic
perception.

14.

15. Hierarchical taxonomy

HIERARCHICAL TAXONOMY

16. Fuzziness in conceptual domains: Problematical taxonomies

FUZZINESS IN CONCEPTUAL DOMAINS:
PROBLEMATICAL TAXONOMIES
We saw that whenever categorization of natural
categories is involved, there is by definition some
fuzziness at the category edges. Tomatoes, for example,
can be categorized as either vegetables or fruit,
depending on who is doing the categorizing. The same
goes for the onomasiological domain.
For example, when we look at the basic level model, we
might feel that if we "puzzle" long enough we will
discover a clear, mosaic-like organization of the lexicon
where each item has a clear "place" in a given taxonomy.
However, there are several reasons to question this
apparent neatness. For one thing, as Table 8 shows,
there are problems of overlap in actual language data:
Since shorts, jeans, and trousers are generally worn by
both men and women, the taxonomy in Table 8 shows
overlapping areas if women's and men's garment criteria
are taken into account.

17.

18.

Another problem is that it is not always possible to
decide exactly at which level one should place a
lexical item in the hierarchy.
A detailed analysis of clothing terms provided the
following problem: At which level of the taxonomy in
Table 8 would the item culottes (see Figure 2 on
page 39) have to be placed? Is it a word at the more
generalized, higher end of the taxonomy, alongside
"trousers" and "skirt", that is, as a basic level term
(Table 9a), or do culottes belong one level below
these terms as a subordinate category, at the more
specific level (Table 9b)?

19.

20. Conceptual metonymy

CONCEPTUAL METONYMY
The links between conceptual domains are made by
means of metaphor and metonymy.
A conceptual metonymy names one aspect or element
in a conceptual domain while referring to some other
element which is in a contiguity relation with it. The
following instances are typical of conceptual
metonymy.

21.

Основу концептуальной метонимии
составляет процесс метонимического
проецирования, осуществляемый в пределах
одной идеализированной когнитивной
модели. Опираясь на концепцию З.
Ковечеша и Г. Раддена (Kövecses, 1998), мы
рассматриваем метонимию как когнитивный
процесс, в котором один концепт-источник
обеспечивает ментальный доступ к другому
концепту-цели в пределах одного домена,
или идеализированной когнитивной модели
(ИКМ).

22.

In each of these instances, the thing itself could be named.
Thus in (4a) we could also say My name is not in the telephone
book, in (4b) The tyre of my car is flat, in (4c) This year we
read a play by Shakespeare, etc.
By the use of the metonymical alternative, the speaker
emphasizes the more salient rather than the^gecific factors
in the things named.

23. а) Источник ЧАСТЬ → цель ЦЕЛОЕ (т.е. проецирование части на целое):

Основные модели концептуальной
метонимии
А) ИСТОЧНИК ЧАСТЬ → ЦЕЛЬ ЦЕЛОЕ (Т.Е.
ПРОЕЦИРОВАНИЕ ЧАСТИ НА ЦЕЛОЕ):

24.

Например,
ИКМ “Категория и ее признак”, основанная на
проекции ПРИЗНАК-ОБЪЕКТ, пропозиционально
представленной как ЧАСТЬ ОТНОСИТСЯ К ЦЕЛОМУ:
tube - a can (or bottle) of beer or lager [from the tubular
shape of a can or bottle], где в качестве метонимического
источника выступает визуальный признак формы.
Другими примерами подобной проекции могут служить
ИКМ “Категория и ее члены”: bomb – nuclear weapons
and the potential threat they impose (метоним ЧЛЕН
КАТЕГОРИИ - КАТЕГОРИЯ); ИКМ “Событие”: sick-out
- an organized absence of employees from their jobs on the
pretext of being sick, to avoid the legal penalties that may
result from a formal strike, где физическое состояние
(болезнь) как предлог прогула служащих выступает
частью целого сценария “Забастовка (нового типа)”
(метоним ЧАСТЬ СЦЕНАРИЯ - ЦЕЛЫЙ СЦЕНАРИЙ).

25.

Во вторую группу входят модели, основанные на
проекции Источник ЧАСТЬ 1 – цель ЧАСТЬ 2,
т.е. на проецировании одной части на другую,
пропозиционально представленной как ЧАСТЬ
ОТНОСИТСЯ К ЧАСТИ (PARS→PARS):

26.

К примеру,
ИКМ “Каузация”, базирующаяся на проекции
ПРИЧИНА-СЛЕДСТВИЕ: slim –AIDS, где
следствие предстает в виде признака - худобы,
вызванной заболеванием СПИД. Сюда же
относятся ИКМ “Функциональные отношения”
(plastic money – credit cards (метоним
ФУНКЦИЯ - СУБЪЕКТ), где с помощью единицы
“пластиковые деньги” на передний план
выдвигается функционирование кредитной
пластиковой карточки как денежного средства);
ИКМ “Отношения обладания” (freebee – 1)
something obtained free of charge, smth gratis; 2)
one who gets or gives smth free of charge (метоним
ОБЛАДАЕМОЕ - ОБЛАДАТЕЛЬ)) и другие ИКМ.

27.

Все рассмотренные единицы образованы в
результате одноступенчатой метонимической
проекции и, как показал анализ, развитие значения
происходит в пределах метонима в составе одной
ИКМ.
Однако среди новых слов встречается немало
единиц вторичной номинации, которые
представляют собой так называемую “двойную”
метонимию.
Анализ неологизма acrylic – 1) acrylic resin; 2) a paint
made with an acrylic resin as the Источник, used
especially in art; 3) a painting done with acrylics.
Представим процесс развития значения в
упрощенном виде: acrylic resin → a paint → a
painting, что схематизируется следующим образом:

28.

c) Источник ЦЕЛОЕ → цель ЧАСТЬ (т.е.
модель проецирования целого на ее часть), что
в канонических терминах звучит как
TOTO→PARS.
TOTO
Источник
PARS
Цель

29.

Например,
ИКМ “Объект и его части”:
Ginnie Mae – 1) nickname for the Government National Mortgage
Association; 2) a stock certificate used by this agency.
Основу переноса здесь составляет проекция ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ПРОДУКТ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ. Ее концептуальный каркас
формирует пропозиция ЦЕЛОЕ ОТНОСИТСЯ К ЧАСТИ,
которая специфицируется в виде указанной проекцииметонима, входящего в состав более крупной ИКМ.
Под метонимом мы понимаем концептуальную единицу,
встроенную в наше сознание и определяющую регулярное
направление изменения значения по метонимическому типу.
Таким образом, концептуальный каркас нового
метонимического значения формируется на основе
неоперационных и операционных когнитивных моделей в
виде цепочки “пропозиция – метоним - ИКМ”

30. Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS
The main levels of categorization are:
1. Superordinate
2. Basic
3. Subordinate
The basic principle underlying categorization is the
notion of class inclusion
The superordinate class includes all items on the basic
and subordinate level

31. Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS
The links between conceptual domains are made by
means of metaphor and metonymy.
A conceptual metonymy names one aspect or
element in a conceptual domain while referring to
some other element which is in a contiguity relation
with it.