Abstract
Two experiments are reported in which linear separability was investigated in superordinate natural language concept pairs (e.g.,toiletry-sewing gear). Representations of the exemplars of semantically related concept pairs were derived in two to five dimensions using multidimensional scaling (MDS) of similarities based on possession of the concept features. Next, category membership, obtained from an exemplar generation study (in Experiment 1) and from a forced-choice classification task (in Experiment 2) was predicted from the coordinates of the MDS representation using log linear analysis. The results showed that allnatural kind concept pairs were perfectly linearly separable, whereasartifact concept pairs showed several violations. Clear linear separability of natural language concept pairs is in line with independent cue models. The violations in the artifact pairs, however, yield clear evidence against the independent cue models.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ashby, F. G., &Maddox, W. T. (1992). Complex decision rules in categorization: Contrasting novice and experienced performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 50–71.
Blair, M., &Homa, D. (2001). Expanding the search for linear separability constraint on category learning.Memory & Cognition,29, 1153–1164
Edgington, E. S. (1995).Randomization tests (3rd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Estes, W. K. (1994).Classification and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Franks, J. J., &Bransford, J. D. (1971). Abstraction of visual patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 65–74.
Gärdenfors, P. (2000).Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 441–461.
Hampton, J. A. (1997). Psychological representations of concepts. In M. A. Conway (Ed.),Cognitive models of memory (pp. 81–110). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories.Cognition,65, 137–165.
Hayes-Roth, B., &Hayes-Roth, F. (1977). Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,16, 321–338.
Humphreys, G. W., &Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specif ic” neuropsychological deficits.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24, 453–509.
Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure.Psychological Bulletin,112, 500–526.
Kruskal, J. B., &Wish, M. (1978).Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., &Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 230–262.
McCloskey, M. E., &Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?Memory & Cognition,6, 462–472.
Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Medin, D. L., &Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1981). Linear separability in classif ication learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 355–368.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classif ication.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 104–114.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Onghena, P., &Van Damme, G. (1994). SCRT 1.1: Single-case randomization tests.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,26, 369.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization.Cognitive Psychology,3, 382–407.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
Sebestyen, G. S. (1962).Decision-making processes in pattern recognition. New York: Macmillan.
Sloman, S. A., &Malt, B. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds.Language & Cognitive Processes,18, 563–582.
Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. M. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, J. D., Murray, M. J., &Minda, J. P. (1997). Straight talk about linear separability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 659–680.
Smits, T., Storms, G., Rosseel, Y., &De Boeck, P. (2002). Fruits and vegetables categorized: An application of the generalized context model.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 836–844.
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (Ed.),Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 117–137). New York: Oxford University Press.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., &Ruts, W. (2000). Prototype- and exemplarbased information in natural language categories.Journal of Memory & Language,42, 51–73.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., &Ruts, W. (2001). Categorization of novel stimuli in well-known natural concepts: A case study.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 377–384.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., &Ruts, W. (1996). The dominance effect in concept conjunctions: Generality and interaction aspects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1–15.
Storms, G., Ruts, W., &Vandenbroucke, A. (1998). Dominance, overextensions, and the conjunction effect in different syntactic phrasings of concept conjunctions.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,10, 337–372.
Sutcliffe, J. P. (1993). Concepts, class, and category in the tradition of Aristotle. In I. Van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 35–65). London: Academic Press.
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 & Language,75, 195–231.
Verbeemen, T., Vanoverberghe, V., Storms, G., &Ruts, W. (2001). The role of contrast categories in natural language concepts.Journal of Memory & Language,44, 618–643.
Wattenmaker, W. D., Dewey, G. I., Murphy, T. D., &Medin, D. L. (1986). Linear separability and concept learning: Context, relational properties, and concept naturalness.Cognitive Psychology,18, 158–194.
Wierzbicka, A. (1984). Apples are not a “kind of fruit”: The semantics of human categorization.American Ethnologist,11, 313–328.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Part of the reported research was sponsored by Grant G.0266.02 from the F.W.O.-Flanders.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruts, W., Storms, G. & Hampton, J. Linear separability in superordinate natural language concepts. Memory & Cognition 32, 83–95 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195822
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195822