Basic Objects in Natural Categories – Rosch et al 1976
Experiment 9:
Children sorted pictures that were taxonomically related or grouped by superordinate sets.
Basic: 4 shoes, 4 chairs, 4 men’s faces, 4 cars
Superordinate: sock, shirt, pants, table, chair car etc.
Subject more likely to sort by taxonomy in basic condition especially at ages K and 1st grade.
Subjects given multiple tries to sort taxonomically .
Explanation for sorting lagged correct sorting by a few grades.
Young children struggle with superordinate sorting but accel at basic level sorting.
Experiment 10:
Subjects were given packets requiring labels at the Superoridnate, basic, or subordinate level to individually name each object
Overwhelmingly subjects responded with basic level names and not for the frequency of the name or lack of superordinate knowledge.
Experiment 11:
Corpus of language used by stage I language learner included almost exclusively basic level nouns for concrete terms.
Children age 3 identify object with basic level names.
Experiment 12:
Signers of ASL asked if a sign existed for superordinate, basic and subordinate level nouns.
Significantly greater number of signs for basic level categories than superordinate or subordinate categories.
More signs for superordinate categories than subordinate categories.
Something weird about biological categories where “superordinate” category behaves like the basic level category across most experiments.
How do we delineate the set of attributes used for categorization and cue validity?
Does taxonomic depth vary with information structure?