Page 250 - Foundations of Cognitive Psychology : Core Readings

256 Eleanor Rosch

Table 10.1
Examples of taxonomies used in basic object research
Superordinate Basic level Subordinate
Furniture Chair Kitchen chair
Living-room chair
Table Kitchen table
Dining-room table
Lamp Floor lamp
Desk lamp
Tree Oak White oak
Red oak
Maple Silver maple
Sugar maple
Birch River birch
White birch

Subjects received sets of words taken from these nine taxonomies; the sub-
ject’s task was to list all of the attributes he could think of that were true of the
items included in the class of things designated by each object name. Thus, for
purposes of this study, attributes were defined operationally as whatever sub-
jects agreed them to be with no implications for whether such analysis of an
object could or could not be perceptually considered prior to knowledge of the
object itself. Results of the study were as predicted: Very few attributes were
listed for the superordinate categories, a significantly greater number listed for
the supposed basic-level objects, and not significantly more attributes listed for
subordinate-level objects than for basic-level. An additional study showed es-
sentially the same attributes listed for visually present objects as for the object
names. The single unpredicted result was that for the three biological taxono-
mies, the basic level, as defined by numbers of attributes in common, did not
occur at the level of the folk generic but appeared at the level we had originally
expected to be superordinate (e.g., tree rather than oak).

Motor Movements
Inseparable from the perceived attributes of objects are the ways in which
humans habitually use or interact with those objects. For concrete objects, such
interactions take the form of motor movements. For example, when performing
the action of sitting down on a chair, a sequence of body and muscle move-
ments are typically made that are inseparable from the nature of the attributes
of chairs—legs, seat, back, etc. This aspect of objects is particularly important in
light of the role that sensory-motor interaction with the world appears to play
in the development of thought (Bruner, Olver, and Greenfield 1966; Nelson
1974; Piaget 1952).
In our study of motor movements, each of the sets of words used in the pre-
vious experiment was administered to new subjects. A subject was asked to
describe, in as much finely analyzed detail as possible, the sequences of motor
movements he made when using or interacting with the object. Tallies of