Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 89–112

The effect of figurative thought on basic level categorization

How categories come to be formed and named

| University of Pécs

The definition for basic level categories relies on perceptual attributes, mostly on the perception of particular shape characteristics (Rosch, 1978). However, as is well known, there are cross-linguistic differences in basic level categorization with regard to the scope of the categories designated by the respective terms. Since word meanings do not directly correspond to perceptually definable basic level categories, these words do not designate the same range of referents, even though the attributes themselves do not necessarily differ cross-culturally. The same objects may belong to totally different linguistic categories, or even be assigned to levels above or below the perceptually basic one of the category system in different languages. The present theoretical study will explore why objects exhibiting similar perceptual characteristics come to be assigned to different linguistic categories. I suggest that the diversity originates in the figurative construals and ensuing conceptualizations underlying the lexicalization processes of these categories.

Keywords: categorization, perception, figurative thought, lexicalization, cultural conceptualization, construal, conventionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The role of figuration and perception in the formation of basic level categories in language
  • 3.The conceptualization of basic level categories and the influence of figuration
    • 3.1Levels of categorization, the scope of categories, and the effect of figurative thought
    • 3.2Figuration in the conceptualization and lexicalization of categories
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.04gyo
References
Anttila, R.
(1992) Field theory of meaning and semantic change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 23–83). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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
Ashby, F. G., & O’Brian, J. B.
(2005) Category learning and multiple memory systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 83–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atran, S., & Medin, D.
(2008) The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. Cambridge, MA & London, England: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1983) English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R.
(2010) Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Benkő, L.
(Ed.) (1984) A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára. Első kötet. Második kiadás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. [Historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language]Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P.
(1969) Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blank, A.
(1999) Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 61-89). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Pathways of lexicalization. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals (pp. 1596–1608). Vol. II. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003) Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In R. Eckardt, K. von Heusinger & C. Schwarze (Eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp. 37–65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.
(1958) How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1996) Communities, commonalities, and communication. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 324–355). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidoff, J.
(2001) Language and perceptual categorization. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 382–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derksen, R.
(2008) Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden/Boston: Brill.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, 18, 759–787. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DWDS Online
Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. [URL], accessed April 12, 2021.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1997) Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
(1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodson, F. E.
(2003) The evolution and function of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. C.
(1996) Introduction: linguistic relativity re-examined. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Győri, G.
(1996) Historical aspects of categorization. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 175–206). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2002) Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Categorizing processes, motions and actions: What is basic about basic level verbs? Argumentum, 15, 226–240.Google Scholar
Harnad, S.
(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
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D.
(2016) Do language-specific word meanings shape sensory and motor brain systems? The relevance of semantic typology to cognitive neuroscience. Linguistic Typology, 20(3), 623–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1985) The influence of semantic fields on semantic change. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics – Historical word-formation (pp. 283–296). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2019) Lexicalization patterns. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of event structure (pp. 395–425). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L.
(1992) An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. (2nd edition). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1996) The scope of linguistic relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 37–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G.
(2012) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The centrality of language in human cognition. Language Learning, 66(3), 516–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C.
(2015) Words as names for objects, actions, relations, and properties. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), Handbook of the word (pp. 320–333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
2004 Eleventh Edition. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
(1992) Outline of a model for semantic change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 125–141). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. D.
(1992): Outline of a model for semantic change. In: Kellermann, G. & Morrissey, M. D. (eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 125–141). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y.
(2005) The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 468–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED Online
Oxford English Dictionary Online, [URL], accessed April 12, 2021.
Palmer, G. B.
(1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B.
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D.
(2013) Natural selection and shape perception. In S. J. Dickinson & Z. Pizlo (Eds.), Shape perception in human and computer vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 171–185). London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, A., & Waite, M.
(Eds.) (2011) Concise Oxford English Dictionary. (12th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2007) Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 66–168). (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA/London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(1999) The role of pragmatics in semantic change. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, vol. II (pp. 93–102). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
(2011) Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaan, M. de
(2008) Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Wahrig, G.
(1978) Deutsches Wörterbuch. (Sonderausgabe). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wahrig-Burfeind, R.
(Ed.) (2011) Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch. (9. Auflage). Gütersloh & München: Wissenmedia Verlag.Google Scholar
Watkins, C.
(1985) The American Heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Lidz, J. L.
(2006) Early word learning. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language (pp. 299–335). (6th edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Westermann, G., & Mareschal, D.
(2014) From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20120391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E.
(1992) Schemas and prototypes: Remarks on syntax change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 265–280). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar