35 years of Cognitive Linguistics
Session 2: Categorization
Martin Hilpert
•
Because my mother tongue is English, it
seems self-evident that bushes and
trees are different kinds of things. I
would not think this unless I had been
taught that it was the case.
(Leach 1964:34)
categorization in language
•
German:
–
•
die Gabel, das Messer, der Löffel
Dyirbal:
–
–
–
–
bayi: human males, animals
balan: human females, water, fire, fighting
balam: non-flesh food
bala: everything else
Same experience – same category
• If there is a basic domain of experience
associated with A, then it is natural for entities in
that domain to be in the same category as A.
– Fire is in the balan class, as are light and
stars, which are related to fire
– Weapons (spears, shields) are related to
fighting, so are in balan class
– Fish are animate, so use bayi. All fishing
instruments are also in this class
Myth and Belief
• If some noun has characteristic X (on
the basis of which its class membership
is expected to be decided) but is,
through belief or myth, connected with
characteristic Y, then generally it will
belong to the class corresponding to Y
and not the class corresponding to X
Myth and Belief
• Birds are animate, so “should be” classified by
bayi. BUT the Dyirbal believe that birds are the
spirits of dead human females, so they are
classified by balan.
• Some birds are believed to be mythical men, so are
classified by bayi.
• Crickets are “old ladies” in myths so are classified
by balan
• The hairy mary grub, whose sting feels like
sunburn, is classified with the sun, by balan.
• Storms and rainbows are thought to be mythical
men (bayi)
categorization
• seeing something as a kind of thing, a
member of a group
• categories reflect our ‘interpretation’ of
things in the world
categorization
• a cognitive ability that we mostly apply
unconsciously
• rises to awareness mostly in problematic
cases
the classic view
• Categories are defined by
necessary and sufficient criteria
• These criteria are inherent in
the category members
• The criteria are binary: X, not X
• Something is either in the
category or not
• Every instance of a category
represents that category
equally well
necessary and sufficient criteria
•
•
•
•
A square is a closed, flat figure.
It has four sides.
All sides are equal in length.
All interior angles are equal.
• Includes all true squares,
excludes rectangles, triangles,
circles, free forms, etc.
word meanings: classic categories
• ‘A meaning is not a thing in itself, but only a set of
contrastive relations. There is no way to determine a
meaning apart from comparisons and contrasts with
other meanings within the same semantic area.’
(Nida 1975:151)
• boy [+human, -adult, +male]
• girl [+human, -adult, -male]
• man [+human, +adult, +male]
• woman [+human, +adult, -male]
syntactic categories: classic categories
• This book is very ___.
–
–
–
–
–
interesting, expensive, old, …
*read, *sell, *buy
*library, *money, *author
*on, *under, *below
*interestingly, *honestly
• Question formation
–
–
–
–
SUB AUX VP >> AUX SUB VP
John could have missed the train. >> Could John have missed the train?
I ought to go and see him. >> Ought I to go and see him?
I promised to go and see him. >> *Promised I to go and see him?
the classic view in linguistics
• Linguistic categories, like phonemes, word
meanings, and syntactic word classes, are defined
by necessary and sufficient features.
• An element is either found within a category or it is
not in that category.
• Knowledge of language is knowledge of the
categorical differences between classes of linguistic
elements.
problems with necessary and
sufficient features
necessary and sufficient criteria
• What are the defining features
of a game?
–
–
–
–
opponents
played for fun
winners and losers
you need luck, skills
• What still counts as a game
and what no longer does?
Can you give the boundary?
No. You can draw one, for
none so far has been
drawn. (But that never
troubled you when you used
the word ‘game’.)
(Wittgenstein 1978: 31)
problems with inherent
characteristics
Labov 1973
Labov 1973
Labov 1973
Labov 1973
Labov 1973
Labov 1973
• when people were
told nothing about
the content
• when people were
told the vessel was
for food
problems with the idea that each
category member represents its
category equally well
1. goodness-of-example ratings
Are these good examples of the category
‘furniture’?
Rate them from (1) very good to (7) very bad.
Rosch 1975
2. speed of verification
Are the following sentences true?
Answer yes or no.
A robin is a bird.
A duck is a fish.
slow responses due to the
non-prototypicality of ‘penguin’
A penguin is a bird.
3. priming effects
On the following screen you will
see a word. Just look at the word.
this is called the ‘prime’
furniture
Is the following a word of English?
Answer yes or no as fast as possible.
this is called the ‘stimulus’
chair
priming effects
• After seeing ‘furniture’, speakers verify the word
‘chair’ more quickly than usual
• After seeing ‘furniture’, speakers do not verify the word
‘ashtray’ more quickly than usual
• >> furniture primes chair but not ashtray
Rosch 1975
• degrees of category membership are
psychologically real
• goodness-of-example ratings
• speed of category verification
• priming effects
• >> categories are organized around prototypes
Prototype
•
•
•
•
Best, clearest example of the category
Combines all of the typical features
Results from frequent exposure
Represents the category as a whole
Prototype theory
• Categories are organized around prototypes
(or “best”, most typical examples).
• To be included in the category, some but not
all of the characteristic features must be
present.
• Category membership is a matter of degree.
• Members resemble each other, but are not
equally good representatives.
another problem of the classical
view: transitive relations
transitivity
• On the classical view, a member of a
subcategory is necessarily also a member of
all superordinate categories
animal
mammal
rodent
hamster
furniture
seat
car seat
Categorization in grammar
a first example:
WH-questions
WH-questions
• Forming WH-questions:
– I think John will throw a party if he passes the test.
– What do you think John will do if he passes the test?
• The classical view of syntactic categories would
predict that all questions that are formed by this
rule are equally grammatical.
• But some examples seem to be awkward:
– Frank denies that John will throw a party.
– ? What does Frank deny that John will do?
Dabrowska 2008
• Speakers are asked to rate different kinds of
WH-questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
WH Prototypical:
WH Subject:
WH Auxiliary:
WH Verb:
WH that:
WH Long:
WH Unprototypical:
What do you think the witness will say?
What does Claire think the witness will say?
What would you think the witness will say?
What do you believe the witness will say?
What do you think that the witness will say?
What do you think Jo believes the witness will say?
What would Claire believe that Jo thinks the witness
will say?
Dabrowska 2008
• Prediction of the classical view:
– all types should receive similar ratings
• Prediction of the prototype view:
– the prototypical type should receive the
best ratings
– the more atypical features are included, the
worse the ratings should get
Dabrowska 2008
• Speakers are asked to rate different kinds of
WH-questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
WH Prototypical:
WH Subject:
WH Auxiliary:
WH Verb:
WH that:
WH Long:
WH Unprototypical:
4,31
4,25
3,93
3,23
3,84
3,85
2,54
What do you think the witness will say?
What does Claire think the witness will say?
What would you think the witness will say?
What do you believe the witness will say?
What do you think that the witness will say?
What do you think Jo believes the witness will say?
What would Claire believe that Jo thinks the witness
will say?
another example:
the ditransitive construction vs.
the prepositional dative
John gave Mary the book.
John gave the book to Mary.
John gave her the
book.
John gave the book to her.
John gave her it.
John gave it to her.
John threw the floor his keys.
John threw his keys to the
floor.
John gave Mary a
letter.
John gave a letter to Mary.
John gave Mary the keys.
John gave the keys to
Mary.
Bresnan et al. 2007
• The prototypical ditransitive:
– has a recipient that is animate, short, and discourse-active
– has a theme that is expressed lexically, that is longer than
the recipient, that is inanimate, and that is indefinite (not
discourse active), and that is singular (not plural)
• The prototypical prepositional dative is the
mirror image.
• Nonetheless, non-prototypical instances of
these constructions are regularly produced!
– This gives me the creeps / *This gives the creeps to me.
– This movie will give the creeps to just about anyone who has
a problem with spiders.
Summary
• categorization is a basic cognitive ability that
is reflected in all human activity, including
language
• the classic view of categorization holds that
categories are formed on the basis of
necessary and sufficient characteristics
• this view is challenged and replaced with a
model of prototype categories
– family resemblances instead of necessary features
– ‘best exemplars’ as representatives for categories
– association with a category diminishes as members become
less similar to the prototype
Summary
• five problems of the classical view
– necessary and sufficient features are sometimes inadequate
(games)
– inherent characteristics are sometimes inadequate (cups)
– not all category members represent their categories equally well
(birds)
– not all transitive relations hold (car seat)
Summary
• Also linguistic categories are organized
in a prototypical fashion:
– there are ‘good’ WH-questions and ‘odd’
WH-questions
– some ditransitives are more prototypical
than others
– >> knowledge of grammar is a network of
constructions, not a system of discrete
rules
for next time
• remember: NO CLASS on March 3
• but: reading assignment Lakoff 1993
• Please do the quiz by Monday evening.