Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

V. Mast; D. Wolter; A. Klippel; J.O. Wallgrun; T. Tenbrink; C. Freksa; B. Nebel; M. Hegarty; T. Barkowsky

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

V. Mast, D. Wolter, A. Klippel, J.O. Wallgrun, T. Tenbrink, C. Freksa (Editor), B. Nebel (Editor), M. Hegarty (Editor), T. Barkowsky (Editor)

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

298 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Spatial Cognition IX
Subtitle of host publication	Lecturers Notes in Computer Science
Publisher	Springer
Pages	92-107
Edition	2014
ISBN (Print)	9783319112145
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7
Publication status	Published - 15 Sept 2014

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7

PDB5094-00.pdfAccepted author manuscript, 2.62 MB

Cite this

@inbook{1837ba7d24c942d0b4c5b71c23cf859f,

title = "Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction",

abstract = "Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.",

author = "V. Mast and D. Wolter and A. Klippel and J.O. Wallgrun and T. Tenbrink and C. Freksa and B. Nebel and M. Hegarty and T. Barkowsky",

year = "2014",

month = sep,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7",

language = "English",

isbn = "9783319112145",

pages = "92--107",

booktitle = "Spatial Cognition IX",

publisher = "Springer",

edition = "2014",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

AU - Mast, V.

AU - Wolter, D.

AU - Klippel, A.

AU - Wallgrun, J.O.

AU - Tenbrink, T.

A2 - Freksa, C.

A2 - Nebel, B.

A2 - Hegarty, M.

A2 - Barkowsky, T.

PY - 2014/9/15

Y1 - 2014/9/15

N2 - Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.

AB - Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_7

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9783319112145

SP - 92

EP - 107

BT - Spatial Cognition IX

PB - Springer

ER -

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this