The Role of Function in Categories

Sergio E. Chaigneau, Lawrence W. Barsalou

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ths.2008.003

Abstract


In the psychological literatures on function, four issues have been important: (1) whether function can be a core property of the concepts that represent categories, (2) whether categories based primarily on function provide support for inductive inference, (3) whether functions guide object naming in children, (4) whether function is best understood as affordances or as design history. In these debates, function is often viewed as an independent unitary property that can exist independently of an object’s physical structure. We propose instead that function is a complex relational system that links physical structure, settings, action, and design history. Furthermore we show that viewing function this way resolves discrepancies in the empirical literatures that address it. In particular we find that function achieves its greatest importance when subjects understand the complex relational systems that underlie it. When subjects do not understand these systems, function’s role in classification, inductive inference, and naming decreases. Viewing function as a complex relational system highlights the need for future explorations into its conceptual structure.

Keywords


concepts; functions; theories of functions; inductive inferences; object naming

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahn, W. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69(2), 135-178.

Barsalou, L.W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In E. Kittay & A. Lehrer (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (21-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barsalou, L. W., Sloman, S. A., & Chaigneau, S. E. In press. The HIPE theory of function. To appear in L. A. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barton, M. E. & Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(5), 433-447.

Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1-29.

Bloom, P. (1998). Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition, 66, 87-93.

Chaigneau, S. E. (2002). Studies in the conceptual structure of object function. Dissertation in progress, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Chaigneau, S. E., Barsalou, L. W., & Zamani, M. (2002). Function as a multimodal relational construct. Manuscript in preparation.

Estes, W. K. (1986). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 500- -548.

Farrar, M. J., Raney, G. E., & Boyer, M. E. (1992). Knowledge, concepts, and inferences in childhood. Child Development, 63, 673-691.

Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65-95.

Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103.

Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23(3), 183-209.

Gentner, D. (1978). What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? A study of early word meaning using artificial objects. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 1-6.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.

Gentner, D. & Rattermann, M. I. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. Gelman & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development (pp. 225-277). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, I. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & I. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum.

Gibson, J. J. (1979a). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Hughton- Mifflin.

Gibson, J. I. (1979b). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Hughton-Mifflin. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 441-461.

Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory & Language, 34(5), 686-708.

Heit, E. (1992). Categorization using chains of examples. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 341-380.

Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(2), 411-422.

Sergio E. Chaigneau, Lawrence W. Barsalou Hintzman, D. L. (1986). Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.

Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.

Keil, F. C. (1988). Commentary: Conceptual heterogeneity versus developmental homogeneity (on chairs and bears and other such pairs). Human Development, 31, 35-43.

Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kemler-Nelson, D. G. (1995). Principle-based inferences in young children’s categorization: Revisiting the impact of function on the naming of artifacts. Cognitive Development, 10, 347-380.

Kemler-Nelson D.G., Frankenfield, A., Morris, C., & Blair, E. (2000). Young children’s use of functional information to categorize artifacts: three factors that matter. Cognition, 77(77), 133-168.

Kemler-Nelson, D. G., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds name artifacts by their functions. Child Development, 77(5), 1271-1288.

Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 1-27.

Mak, B. S., & Vera, A. H. (1999). The role of motion in children’s categorization of objects. Cognition, 71, B11-B21.

Malt, B. C„ & Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 195-217.

Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 60-96.

Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Markman, A.B., & Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignability on memory. Psychological Science, 8, 363-367.

Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition, 78, 1-26.

Medin, D. L, Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cognitive Psychology, 32, 49-96.

Medin, D. L. & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.

Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 87(4), 267-285.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Exemplars, prototypes and similarity rules. In A. Healey, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning theory to connectionist theory: Essays in honor of W K. Estes, Vol. 1 (pp. 149-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Osherson, D., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1991). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Prasada, S. (1999). Names for things and stuff: An Aristotelian perspective. In R. Jackendoff, P. Bloom, & K. Wynn (Eds.), Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in honor of John Macnamara (pp. 119-146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Mind, Language and Reality. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192-233.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605.

Rosch, E., Simpson, C., & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 491-502.

Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495-553.

Sloman, S. A., Love, B, & Ahn. W. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22, 189-228.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. A. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22, 377-386.

Smith, Li B„ Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60, 143-171.

Strevens, M. (2000). The essentialist aspect of naive theories. Cognition 74, 149-175. Tomikawa, S. A. & Dodd, D. H. (1980). Early word meanings: Perceptually or functionally based. Child Development, 51, 1103-1109.

Tversky, B. (1989). Parts, partonomies, and taxonomies. Developmental Psychology, 25, 983-995.

Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82, 139-168.

Yamauchi, T. & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26(3), 776-795.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





ISSN 2392-1196 (online)

Partnerzy platformy czasopism