Abstract
Natural taxonomies consist of categories that vary in level of abstraction. Categories at the basic level, such as chair and apple, arepreferred in a broad range of situations (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976). Several studies have revealed qualitative differences between the basic level and other levels. For example, Tversky and Hemenway (1984) presented evidence that parts proliferate at the basic level, they proposed that parts link the appearance of category members with their functions. Although not taking issue with these findings, Murphy (1991) investigated whetherparts are necessary or sufficient for a basic level In an attempt to demonstrate that parts are not necessary, Murphy used artificial stimuli that did not capture the essential features of natural taxonomiea These discrepancies preclude any conclusions based on his studies. Murphy’s data also do not support his claim that parts are not sufficient for a basic level Finally, ii is unlikely that pur8uing questions of necessity or sufficiency will produce insights into human categorization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Armstrong, S. L., Glajtman, L. R., &Gleitman, H. (1983), What some concepts might not be.Cognition,13, 263–308
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., &Raven, P. H. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology.American Anthropologist,75, 214–242.
Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called?Psychological Review,65, 14–21.
Brown, R. (1980).Natural categories and basic objects in the domain of persons. Katz-Newcomb Lecture, University of Michigan, AnnArbor, MI.
Lakoff, G. (1987).Women,fire anddangerous things: Whatcategories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lassaline, M. E., Wisniewskj, E. J., &MacaN, D. L. (1991). The basic level in artificial and natural categories: Are all basic levels created equal? In B. Burns (Ed.),Percepts, concepts and categories: The representation and processing of information. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Murphy, G. L. (1991). Parts in object concepts: Experiments with artificial categories.Memory & Cognition,19, 423–438.
Murphy, G. L., &Smith, E. E. (1982). Basic-level superiority in picture categorization.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 1–20.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning.” In K. Gunderson (Ed.),Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 215–271). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure ofcategories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., &Boyesbraem, P. (1976). Basic objectsin natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958).Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Biackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Preparation of this manuscript was facilitated by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, under Grant AFOSR 89-0076 to Stanford University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tversky, B., Hemenway, K. Parts and the basic level in natural categories and artificial stimuli: Comments on Murphy (1991). Memory & Cognition 19, 439–442 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199565
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199565