Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions.

Abstract

A model is proposed to account for recent findings on the time needed to decide that a test instance is a member of a target semantic category. It is assumed that the meaning of a lexical term can be represented by semantic features. Some of these features are essential or defining aspects of a word's meaning (defining features), while others are more accidental or characteristic aspects (characteristic features). This defining versus characteristic distinction is combined with a two-stage processing mechanism in such a way that the first stage determines the similarity between the test instance and target category with respect to both defining and characteristic features, while the second stage considers only agreement between defining features. This model is shown to be consistent with most semantic memory effects, and two new experiments provide further detailed support for it.

Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories

“…Much has been made in the literature (e.g. Smith et al, 1974) about the well-definedness of BIRDS for example. Smith et al used the clear distinction between birds and nonbirds to argue for a distinction between defining features, and merely characteristic features.…”

Concept Typicality and the Interpretation of Plural Predicate Conjunction

“…Since the 1970's, a range of psychological studies has shown for such one-place predicates that subjects consistently rank some instances of a concept as more typical than others, and that such rankings correlate with other measures of typicality such as categorization speed and error rate (e.g. Rosch 1973;Smith et al 1974;Rosch and Mervis 1975). Moreover, I follow Hampton (2007) in assuming that an instance's category membership and its typicality as an instance of that category are two related behavioral measurements, based on one and the same underlying variable.…”

Alternative strategies of categorization

“…true of all members) as well as features that were only characteristic (i.e. true of typical members) (Smith et al, 1974). One of the descriptions presented on a trial contained the necessary features of the target category but not the characteristic ones, whereas the other description contained the characteristic features but not the necessary ones.…”