Abstract
Research on object concepts has identified one level of abstraction as “basic” in cognition and communication. We investigated whether concepts for routine social events have a basic level by replicating the converging operations used to investigate object concepts. In Experiment 1, subjects were presented with event names from a taxonomy and were asked to list the actions comprising the event. Many more actions were listed at the middle than at the highest taxonomic level, without a further increase at the most specific level, paralleling the pattern of superordinate-, basic-, and subordinate-level object concepts. From these action.lists, briefstories were composed for each event. In Experiment 2, subjects madepairwisesimilarity judgments on the stories. The mean similarity ofevents increased with specificity, as expected. But differentiation of categories (within-category similarity compared to between-category similarity) was highest for superordinates, contrary to results with object categories. In Experiment 3, subjects were fastest in recognizing actions as belonging to events named at the basic level. In Experiment 4, subjects predominantly chose basic-level terms to name stories. We conclude that event taxonomies do show basic-level structure, albeit a less sharply defined and less stable structure than in object taxonomies. The benefits and hazards of extending models of object concepts to other entities, such as social events, are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, V., Black, J. B., &Smith, E. E. (1985). The representation of scripts in memory.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 179–199.
Adelson, B. (1983).Constructs and phenomena common to semantically-rich domains (Cognitive Science Tech. Rep. No. 14). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories.Memory & Cognition,11, 211–227.
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.),Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categori-Zation (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W., &Sewell, D. R. (1985). Contrasting the representations of scripts and categories.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 646–665.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., &Raven, P. H. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology.American Anthropologist,75, 214–242.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., &Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology,11, 177–220.
Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called?Psychological Review,65, 14–21.
Cantor, N., &Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3–52). New York: Academic Press.
Cantor, N., Mischel, W., &Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis ofpsychological situations.Cognitive Psychology,14, 45–77.
Clark, H. H., &Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Collins, A., &Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time and semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,8, 240–247.
Cruse, D. A. (1977). The pragmatics of lexical specificity.Journal of Linguistics,13, 153–164.
Downing, P. (1980). Factors influencing lexical choice in narrative. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.),The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 89–126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj II (Ed.),Language development:2. Language, thought and culture (pp. 301–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., &Goldberg, L.R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies in asymmetries in judgments oftrait implications.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,51, 37–54.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., &Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection.Cognitive Psychology,16, 243–275.
Lucariello, J., &Nelson, K. (1986). Context effects on lexical specificity in maternal and child discourse.Journal of Child Language,13, 507–522.
McCloskey, M., &Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory.Cognitive Psychology,11, 1–37.
Mervis, C. B., &Crisafi, M. A. (1982). Order of acquisition of subordinate-, basic-, and superordinate-level categories.Child Development,53, 258–266.
Murphy, G. L., &Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 70–84.
Murphy, G. L., &Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review,92, 289–316.
Murphy, G. L., &Smith, E. E. (1982). Basic-level superiority in picture categorization.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 1–20.
Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics.Psychological Review,77, 257–273.
Putnam, H. (1970). Is semantics possible? In H. E. Kiefer & M. K. Munitz (Eds.),Language, belief, and metaphysics (pp. 50–63). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Read, S. J., Jones, D. K., & Miller, L. C. (in press). Traits as goalbased categories: The importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.
Reiser, B. D., Black, J. B., &Abelson, R. P. (1985). Knowledge structures in the Organization and retrieval of autobiographical memories.Cognitive Psychology,17, 89–137.
Rifkin, A. (1985). Evidence for a basic level in event taxonomies.Memory & Cognition,13, 538–556.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosch, E., Mervis C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., &Boyesbraem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. (1977).Scripts, goals, plans and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. E., Balzano, G. J., &Walker, J. (1978). Nominal, perceptual, and semantic codes in picture categorization. In J. W. Cotton & R. J. Klatzky (Eds.),Semanticfactors in cognition (pp. 137–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. E., &Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual combination with prototype concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 337–361.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1983). Categories of environmental scenes.Cognitive Psychology,15, 121–149.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.
Vallacher, R. R., &Wegner, D. M. (1985).A theory of action identfication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vallacher, R. R., &Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior.Psychological Review,94, 3–15.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1989). Superordinate and basic category names in discourse: A textual analysis.Discourse Processes,12, 245–261.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-41704 and NSF Grant BNS 83-15145 and was completed while the first author was at Brown University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morris, M.W., Murphy, G.L. Converging operations on a basic level in event taxonomies. Memory & Cognition 18, 407–418 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197129
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197129