Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
Standard Standard
Spatial Cognition IX: Lecturers Notes in Computer Science. 2014. ed. Springer, 2014. p. 92-107.
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
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 -