Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 4:2 (2017) ► pp.171–193

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

What happens to the basic level in language?

Some theoretical considerations with crosslinguistic examples

 | University of Pécs (Hungary)
Published online: 16 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00001.gyo
Abstract
It is a common assumption that basic level categories are cognitive units that share perceptual and linguistic characteristics at the same time. They are taken to be perceptual and functional gestalts designated by words that have a special status with regard to lexical development in children and frequency of occurrence and usefulness in everyday communication. Despite this connectedness of the two aspects of the basic level they do not go hand in hand. The perceptual side of basic level categorization is primary to language and exists independently of it. Basic level categories emerge naturally in the human perceptual-cognitive system as a result of our biological make-up in order to facilitate a proper functioning and orientation in our environment. The linguistic side relies on perception but is at the same time determined by several other factors. Basic level designations do not directly represent perceptual information because they contain additional conceptual knowledge reflecting cultural conceptualizations. This dissociation between the two sides can be seen on the one hand in the inconsistencies between perceptual qualities of entities and the way in which these entities are grouped together in linguistic basic level categories. On the other hand it is revealed through crosslinguistic discrepancies in category boundaries as delineated by words that are considered basic level terms and seemingly correspond in their semantics. An explanation of these phenomena requires that we do not handle the basic level as one phenomenon in which the perceptual and linguistic aspects merge but keep the two sides of the basic level apart while paying attention to their specific connections and influences on each other.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognition and categorization with and without language
  • 3.Language and the basic level of categorization
  • 4.Basic level categories vs. basic level terms
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (44)
References
Archambault, A., Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2000). A natural bias for the basic level?. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 585–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atran, S., Estin, P., Coley, J., & Medin, D. (1997). Generic species and basic levels: Essence and appearance in folk biology. Journal of Ethnobiology, 17(1), 17–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collin, C. A., & McMullen, P. A. (2005). Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(2), 354–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crespo, B. (2013). Change in life, change in language. A semantic approach to the history of English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidoff, J. (2001). Language and perceptual categorization. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 382–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G. (2003). Categories for names or names for categories? The interplay between domain-specific conceptual structure and language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 181, 759–787. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensorymotor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glushko, R. J., Maglio, P. P., Matlock, T., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Categorization in the wild. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 129–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Shuff-Bailey, M., Olguin, R., & Ruan, W. (1995). Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of categorical scope. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 494–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodson, F. E. (2003). The evolution and function of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Győri, G. (1996). Historical aspects of categorization. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 175–206). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Semantic change as linguistic interpretation of the world. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 71–89). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Symbolic cognition: its evolution and adaptive impact. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 113–129). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Semantic-lexical change at the crossroads between universals and linguistic relativity. A perspective from cognition and evolution. In W. Mihatsch & R. Steinberg (Eds.), Lexikalische Daten und Universalien des semantischen Wandels / Lexical data and universals of semantic change (pp. 19–37). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42, 335–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). To cognize is to categorize. Cognition is categorization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 20–43). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind and culture. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2012a). What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 571: (pp. 255–297). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 31, Article 54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The centrality of language in human cognition. Language Learning, 66(3), 516–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malt, B. C. (2015). Words as names for objects, actions, relations, and properties. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), Handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 320–333). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ameel, E., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2011). Do words reveal concepts?. In L. Carlson, T. F. Shipley & C. Hoelscher (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 519–524). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohan, K., & Arun, S. P. (2012). Similarity relations in visual search predict rapid visual categorization. Journal of Vision, 12, 19. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (10), 468–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
oed Online. March 2017. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hennon, E. A. (2006). The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words through perceptual salience. Child Development, 77(2), 266–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quiatt, D., & Reynolds, V. (1993). Primate behaviour. Information, social knowledge, and the evolution of culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Regier, T., Kemp, C., & Kay, P. (2015). Word meanings across languages support efficient communication. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 237–263). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: a parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA & London, England. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storms, S., Speelman, D., Geeraerts, D., & Storms, G. (2015). Within-concept similarities in a taxonomy: a corpus linguistic approach. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 194–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA & London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 751, 195–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Lidz, J. L. (2006). Early word learning (pp. 299–335). In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language. (6th edition) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Westermann, G., & Mareschal, D. (2014). From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20120391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1984). “Apples” are not a “kind of fruit”: The semantics of human categorization. American Ethnologist, 11(2), 313–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zayan, R., & Vauclair, J. (1998). Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition. Behavioural Processes, 421, 87–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Győri, Gábor
2022. The effect of figurative thought on basic level categorization. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue