The generalized polymorphous concept account of graded structure in abstract categories

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1117-1132

  Verheyen, Steven ^a   Stukken, Loes ^a   de Deyne, Simon ^a   Dry, Matthew J ^b   Storms, Gert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Abstract categories; Category membership; Feature representation; Relational categories; Typicality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LOGIC; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ADULT; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LOGIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80055038020     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0083-2     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado
2. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 578-602.
3. Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263-308.
4. Banville, J. (1998). Beauty, charm, and strangeness: science as metaphor. Science, 281, 40-41.
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211-227.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
7. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129-163). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bouma, G., van Noord, G., & Malouf, R. (2001). Alpino: wide- coverage computational analysis of Dutch. Language and Computers, 37, 45-59.
9. Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617-660.
10. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
11. Christidou, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2004). Constructing social representations of science and technology: the role of metaphors in the press and popular scientific magazines. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 347-362.
12. Church, K. W., & Hanks, P. (1991). Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16, 22-29.
13. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615-627.
14. De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M. J., Voorspoels, W., et al. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1030-1048.
15. Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2010). Features of graded category structure: generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models. Acta Psychologica, 133, 244-255.
16. Estes, Z. (2004). Confidence and gradedness in semantic categorization: definitely somewhat artifactual, maybe absolutely natural. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1041-1047.
17. Galbraith, R. C., & Underwood, B. J. (1973). Perceived frequency of concrete and abstract words. Memory & Cognition, 1, 56-60.
18. Gati, I., & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting common and distinctive features in perceptual and conceptual judgements. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 341-370.
19. Gentner, D. (1981). Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 161-178.
20. Gerhart, M., & Russell, A. M. (2004). Metaphor and thinking in science and religion. Zygon, 39, 13-38.
21. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and ortography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
22. Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24, 608-628.
23. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-461.
24. Hampton, J. A. (1981). An investigation of the nature of abstract concepts. Memory & Cognition, 9, 149-156.
25. Hampton, J. A., & Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: a correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491-516.
26. Hittner, J. B., May, K., & Silver, N. C. (2003). A Monte Carlo evaluation of tests for comparing dependent correlations. Journal of General Psychology, 130, 149-168.
27. Hoffman, P., Rogers, T. T., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2011). Semantic diversity accounts for the missing word frequency effect in stroke aphasia: Insights using a novel method to quantify contextual variability in meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-science.
28. Hough, M. S., & Pierce, R. S. (1989). Exemplar verification for common and ad hoc categories in aphasia. In Clinical aphasiology (Vol. 19, pp. 139-150). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
29. Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C.-L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76, 297-307.
30. Koteyko, N., Brown, B., & Crawford, P. (2008). The dead parrot and the dying swan: The role of metaphor scenarios in the UK press coverage of avian flu in 2005-2006., 23, 242-261.
31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195-208.
32. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
34. Larochelle, S., Richard, S., & Soulières, I. (2000). What some effects might not be: the time to verify membership in "well-defined categories. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 929-961.
35. Lee, M. D. (1999). Algorithms for representing similarity data (Defence Science and Technology Organisation Research Report, DSTO-RR-0152).
36. Lee, M. D. (2001). Determining the dimensionality of multidimensional scaling models for cognitive modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 149-166.
37. Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203-208.
38. Malt, B. C., & Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 195-217.
39. Malt, B. C., & Smith, E. E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory & Cognition, 10, 69-75.
40. Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. (2001). Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13,329-358.
41. Martin, J. D., & Billman, D. O. (1994). Acquiring and combining overlapping concepts. Machine Learning, 16, 121-155.
42. Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 121-147.
43. Mervis, C. B., Catlin, J., & Rosch, E. (1976). Relationships among goodness-of-example, category norms, and word frequency. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 283-284.
44. Navarro, D. J., & Lee, M. D. (2004). Common and distinctive features in stimulus similarity: a modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 961-974.
45. Osherson, D., & Smith, E. E. (1997). On typicality and vagueness. Cognition, 64, 189-206.
46. Pado, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33, 161-199.
47. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY: Penguin.
48. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniardou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York, NY: Academic.
51. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
52. Sattath, S., & Tversky, A. (1977). Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika, 42, 319-345.
53. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499-520.
54. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82-102.
55. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 114-126.
56. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
57. Shepard, R. N. (1980). Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting, and clustering. Science, 210, 390-398.
58. Skelton, J. R., Wearn, A. M., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (2002). A concordance-based study of metaphoric expressions used by general practitioners and patients in consultation. British Journal of General Practice, 52, 114-118.
59. Stukken, L., Verheyen, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2009). A new investigation of the nature of abstract categories. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2438-2443). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
60. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
61. Verbeemen, T., Vanoverberghe, V., Storms, G., & Ruts, W. (2001). The role of contrast categories in natural language concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 618-643.
62. Verheyen, S., De Deyne, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2010). Uncovering contrast categories in categorization with a probabilistic threshold model. Manuscript submitted for publication.
63. Wallis, P., & Nerlich, B. (2005). Disease metaphors in new epidemics: the UK media framing of the 2003 SARS epidemic. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2629-2639.
64. Wiemer-Hastings, K. (1998). Abstract noun classification: using a neural network to match word context and word meaning. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 264-271.
65. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (2000). Conceptually representing abstract concepts with abstract structures. In L. Gleitman & A. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 983-988). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J. D., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint and abstractedness. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1106-1111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 719-736.
68. Wilcox, R. R., & Tian, T. (2008). Comparing dependent correlations. Journal of General Psychology, 135, 105-112.