On the Linguistic Origin of Superordinate Categorization

Benelli, Beatrice

doi:10.1159/000273200

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This knowledge influenced classification more than it influenced typicality judgements. The present results are not consistent with the idea that language (Benelli, 1988; Nelson, 1988) or scientific knowledge (Inagaki, 1989) is necessary for making natural taxonomic classifications–at least not at the perceptual level of categorization. Instead it would appear that our ability to categorize organisms based on biological similarities is shared with other members of the animal kingdom, at least with other non-human primates.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested that the formation of superordinate categories relies less upon perceptual feature analysis and more on an understanding of how the category coheres, across significant perceptual variance (Spalding & Ross, 2000). Superordinate categories are thus thought of as being more conceptually based or “abstract” relative to basic level categories, and it has been speculated that language is necessary for the formation of these later categories (Benelli, 1988; Keil, 1988; Nelson, 1988; Premack, 1983). Organisms may be inherently preprogrammed to distinguish between items at the level of the basic concept perceptually (Cerella, 1979; Eimas & Quinn, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although taxonomic class groupings may be considered basic level concepts (Roberts & Mazmanian, 1988), it has been suggested that the ability to make taxonomic classifications of natural stimuli depends upon biological or scientific knowledge (Eimas & Quinn, 1994; Hampton, 1998; Inagaki, 1989), as well as language (Anggoro, Medin & Waxman, 2010; Benelli, 1988; Gelman, 1989; Nelson, 1988). Quinn & Tanaka (2007) found that expertise within the same basic level category aided infants in the ability to discriminate other concrete level categories, emphasizing the role of expertise in category discrimination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Matching based on biological categories in Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and a Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)

Vonk

2013

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a series of experiments in which six orangutans and one gorilla discriminated photographs of different animal species in a two-choice touch screen procedure, Vonk & MacDonald (2002) and Vonk & MacDonald (2004) concluded that orangutans, but not the gorilla, seemed to learn intermediate level category discriminations, such as primates versus non-primates, more rapidly than they learned concrete level discriminations, such as orangutans versus humans. In the current experiments, four of the same orangutans and the gorilla were presented with delayed matching-to-sample tasks in which they were rewarded for matching photos of different members of the same primate species; golden lion tamarins, Japanese macaques, and proboscis monkeys, or family; gibbons, lemurs (Experiment 1), and subsequently for matching photos of different species within the following classes: birds, reptiles, insects, mammals, and fish (Experiment 2). Members of both Great Ape species were rapidly able to match the photos at levels above chance. Orangutans matched images from both category levels spontaneously whereas the gorilla showed effects of learning to match intermediate level categories. The results show that biological knowledge is not necessary to form natural categories at both concrete and intermediate levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Matching based on biological categories in Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and a Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)

Vonk

2013

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the topmost end of the continuum we reach the level where affective similarity is a minimal requirement and where verbal stipulation becomes the guarantee for categorical membership. In other words, what enables the acquisition of a superordinate category is verbal language (Benelli, 1988;Horton & Markman, 1980;Markman, 1989).…”

Section: Expanding the Basic Level Repertoire Of Contoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

The roots of music: Emotional expression, dialogue and affect attunement in the psychogenesis of music

Volgsten

2012

Musicae Scientiae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I sketch the outlines for a comprehensive theory of the psychogenesis of music. That is, a theory of how human beings may come to hear certain sounds and combinations of sounds as music. It is a theory that takes its empirical starting point in previous and well-known research findings on fundamental human interaction and communication. As such it incorporates at its core a developmentalpsychological theory about the human being's development of a sense of self in relation to others, from infancy on, and is further supported by findings from research on infants' behavior and reactions to music. It is argued that human interaction and communication is at the outset musical -or protomusicaland that which makes interaction and communication work is the emotive, or affective power of sound ("communicative musicality" is another term that has been used for mainly the same phenomenon). Although the empirical foundations are familiar, the comprehensive picture offered by the theory is new. The theory is structured according to a main thesis that states that music is a way of "making special" human self-development, our "sense of self ". However, for this affective-communicative theory to explain not only our reactions to protomusical sound, but also music at large (music understood in a broad universal sense), it must be extended to answer certain questions about human cognition. Therefore I start by referring to research in cognitive-psychology that explains cognition in part as a capacity to categorize phenomena according their level of detail or generality.

show abstract

“…More abstract categories contain members that are perceptually distinct from each other. That is, the features shared by category members may be difficult to discriminate on the basis of sensory properties (Benelli, 1988;Gelman, 1988). For instance, all members of the category ''animal'' share the ability to breathe and reproduce and consist of the same basic internal organs (Gelman, 1989;Ochiai, 1989), features that cannot be directly perceived, particularly in two-dimensional images of the exemplars, such as might be employed in experimental procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

NATURAL CONCEPTS IN A JUVENILE GORILLA (GORILLA GORILLA GORILLA) AT THREE LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION

Vonk

MacDonald

2002

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which nonhumans are able to form conceptual versus perceptual discriminations remains a matter of debate. Among the great apes, only chimpanzees have been tested for conceptual understanding, defined as the ability to form discriminations not based solely on simple perceptual features of stimuli, and to transfer this learning to novel stimuli. In the present investigation, a young captive female gorilla was trained at three levels of abstraction (concrete, intermediate, and abstract) involving sets of photographs representing natural categories (e.g., orangutans vs. humans, primates vs. nonprimate animals, animals vs. foods). Within each level of abstraction, when the gorilla had learned to discriminate positive from negative exemplars in one set of photographs, a novel set was introduced. Transfer was defined in terms of high accuracy during the first two sessions with the new stimuli. The gorilla acquired discriminations at all three levels of abstraction but showed unambiguous transfer only with the concrete and abstract stimulus sets. Detailed analyses of response patterns revealed little evidence of control by simple stimulus features. Acquisition and transfer involving abstract stimulus sets suggest a conceptual basis for gorilla categorization. The gorilla's relatively poor performance with intermediate-level discriminations parallels findings with pigeons, and suggests a need to reconsider the role of perceptual information in discriminations thought to indicate conceptual behavior in nonhumans.

show abstract

On the Linguistic Origin of Superordinate Categorization

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Matching based on biological categories in Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and a Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)

Matching based on biological categories in Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and a Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)

The roots of music: Emotional expression, dialogue and affect attunement in the psychogenesis of music

NATURAL CONCEPTS IN A JUVENILE GORILLA (GORILLA GORILLA GORILLA) AT THREE LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About