Abstract
An important aspect of the categorization process is that an item can be assigned membership in more than one semantic category. Previous work examining how subjects decide an item’s membership in one of several alternative categories has most often used categories having a strict hierarchical relationship (e.g., bird-canary). Four experiments are reported that examine how subjects decide membership of simple pictorial stimuli in partially overlapping categories (e.g., high and very high). Experiment 1 was a rating task designed to identify items as members, nonmembers, or as falling on the fringes for several overlapping categories. In Experiments 2–4, this information was used to predict subjects’ mean reaction time in speeded categorization tasks using the same pictorial stimuli. Subjects interpreted the categories in one of two very different ways. According to the first interpretation, there was a strict set-subset relationship between categories such as “high” and “very high.” According to the second, the entailment relationship did not hold; membership in the category “very high” did not imply membership in “high.” Even when subjects used a set-subset interpretation of the category labels, their reaction times were affected by a form of semantic response competition. Subjects took longer to verify an item’s membership in a category when there was another more appropriate category descriptor for that item included in the experiment.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bierwisch, M. Some semantic universals of German adjectivals.Foundations of Language, 1967,3, 1–36.
Black, M. Vagueness.Philosophy of Science, 1937,4, 427–455.
Caramazza, A., Hersh, H. M., &Torgerson, W. S. Subjective structures and operations in semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976,15, 103–117.
Collins, A. M., &Quillian, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969,8, 240–247.
Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3 Speech acts. New York: Seminar Press, 1975.
Hersh, H. M., &Caramazza, A. A fuzzy set approach to modifiers and vagueness in natural language.Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 1976,105, 254–276.
Labov.W. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.),New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 1973.
Lakoff, G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1973,2, 458–508.
Neisser, U.Cognittve psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Osgood, C. E. The nature and measurement of meaning.Psychological Bulletin, 1952,49, 197–237.
Reeil S. K. Pattern recogmtion and categorization.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 382–407.
Rips, L. J., Shoben.E. J., &Smith, E. E. Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12, 1–20.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-braem, P. Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology, 1976,8, 382–439.
Russell, B. Vagueness.Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1923,1, 84–92.
Smith, E. E. Theories of semantic memory. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 6). Potomac, Md: Erlbaum, in press.
Zadeh, L. A. Fuzzy sets.Information and control, 1965,8, 338–353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Biomedical Support Grant 5 S07 RR 07041-11 to the Johns Hopkins University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brownell, H.H., Caramazza, A. Categorizing with overlapping categories. Memory & Cognition 6, 481–490 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198235
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198235