Heyho folks, Was wondering if any of you might be interested in helping me with a little experiment - it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. On the following list, on a scale from 1 (good example) to 7 (bad example), how would you rank each of these objects according to how well they examplify "Kitchen Utensils"? To avoid inadvertently influencing others, please put your answers in a spoiler-tag. bread-bin pepper-mill blender plate bowl sink-plunger cafetiere rolling-pin chopping board salad spinner fork saucepan frying pan saucer grater scales juicer spatula knife spoon microwave teacup mixer teapot mug toaster nutcracker whisk oven wooden spoon peeler sink plug
Spoiler bread-bin 7 pepper-mill 7 blender 2 plate 7 bowl 7 sink-plunger 5 cafetiere 7 rolling-pin 1 chopping board 1 salad spinner 2 fork 5 saucepan 1 frying pan 1 saucer 7 grater 1 scales 1 juicer 2 spatula 1 knife 2 spoon 5 microwave 7 teacup 7 mixer 1 teapot 5 mug 7 toaster 3 nutcracker 3 whisk 1 oven 1 wooden spoon 3 peeler 1 sink plug 7
Ah, I wouldn't be qualified to attempt a conclusion, but my gut feeling says 'No'. I'm currently doing an elective year of Cognitive Semiotics at Uni, part of which revolves around how we classify and understand the world around us, and how these categories are malleable rather than fixed. The test above is primarily in order to see how a test group might categorize the objects within the superordinate group, and try and explain how variations within the way people categorize might possibly be explained. It also ties in nicely to the notion of online community-specific dialects, but that's something I still have to research a bit more on.
I am personally very interested in semiotics, and this seems to be very semiotically related. Would you be open to sharing your results later?
Aye, will do a summary of the total answers sometime next week, although I should add I've just started the course, albeit I did a semester of 'Language and Cognition' last year, so how interesting my findings, and how extensive my conclusion can be, is most probably quite limited.
Here you go: Spoiler 2 bread-bin 2 pepper-mill 1 blender 5 plate 5 bowl 1 sink-plunger 3 cafetiere 2 rolling-pin 1 chopping board 2 salad spinner 5 fork 1 saucepan 1 frying pan 5 saucer 2 grater 2 scales 2 juicer 2 spatula 2 knife 3 spoon 1 microwave 3 teacup 2 mixer 3 teapot 2 mug 2 toaster 1 nutcracker 3 whisk 2 oven 1 wooden spoon 3 peeler 1 sink plug EDIT: Tonight I didn't know what I was doing so I put the scores inverted (7 = good example, 1 = bad example) Sorry, I edit to correct them.
Spoiler 4 - bread-bin 3 - pepper-mill 2 - blender 4 - plate 4 - bowl 7 - sink-plunger 1 - cafetiere 2 - rolling-pin 2 - chopping board 4 - salad spinner 4 - fork 1 - saucepan 1 - frying pan 5 - saucer 2 - grater 4 - scales 3 - juicer 2 - spatula 2 - knife 4 - spoon 1 - microwave 4 - teacup 2 - mixer 3 - teapot 4 - mug 1 - toaster 7 - nutcracker 3 - whisk 1 - oven 4 - wooden spoon 3 - peeler 7 - sink plug
Spoiler 2 bread-bin 6 pepper-mill 6 blender 1 plate 4 bowl 2 sink-plunger 4 cafetiere 6 rolling-pin 6 chopping board 4 salad spinner 4 fork 5 saucepan 5 frying pan 1 saucer 6 grater 6 scales 4 juicer 7 spatula 7 knife 4 spoon 4 microwave 1 teacup 6 mixer 4 teapot 1 mug 4 toaster 4 nutcracker 7 whisk 4 oven 7 wooden spoon 7 peeler 2 sink plug
Spoiler bread-bin 5 pepper-mill 3 blender 7 plate 4 bowl 4 sink-plunger 7 cafetiere 6 rolling-pin 1 chopping board 3 salad spinner 3 fork 2 saucepan 2 frying pan 2 saucer 2 grater 1 scales 3 juicer 1 spatula 1 knife 2 spoon 2 microwave 7 teacup 4 mixer 7 teapot 4 mug 4 toaster 7 nutcracker 3 whisk 1 oven 7 wooden spoon 1 peeler 1 sink plug 7
Spoiler bread-bin pepper-mill 3 blender 3 plate 2 bowl 2 sink-plunger 5 cafetiere 4 rolling-pin 1 chopping board 1 salad spinner 3 fork 1 saucepan 2 frying pan 1 saucer 3 grater 2 scales 1 juicer 2 spatula 2 knife 1 spoon 1 microwave 1 teacup 1 mixer 2 teapot 2 mug 1 toaster 1 nutcracker 7 whisk 1 oven 1 wooden spoon 1 peeler 1 sink plug 5
Spoiler bread-bin 2 pepper-mill 2 blender 1 plate 3 bowl 3 sink-plunger 6 cafetiere 1 rolling-pin 1 chopping board 1 salad spinner 1 fork 3 saucepan 1 frying pan 1 saucer 4 grater 1 scales 5 juicer 2 spatula 1 knife 3 spoon 4 microwave 1 teacup 4 mixer 1 teapot 4 mug 4 toaster 1 nutcracker 1 whisk 1 oven 1 wooden spoon 2 peeler 1 sink plug 5
Thank you everyone who participated, it's much appreciated, and hugely helpful! As promised, I'm posting the results of this survey: The most striking piece of data, is the fact that the interval for almost every answer is huge, with almost every object counting at least one instance of being considered an examplar of its category. This is explained by the fact that the survey was conducted not only across gender and age, but also nationality, leading to a huge variety in both social, cultural and experience based categorisation. In other words; it is clear that this is not a metonymic Ideal Cognitive Model (ICM) – which would predict a typicality effect based on a single prototypical examplar (e.g. For US subjects,”Robin” is the prototypical examplar for the ”BIRD” category, which, in turn explains why ”Ostrich” scores low, in terms of response-time and general classification.) It is, instead, more likely that the Category ”KITCHEN UTENSILS” is a propositional ICM, one based on relations between objects (”they're all in the kitchen”), as well as individual experience (”We don't have set of scales in our house”). This would account for the relatively large intervals, but still explain the existence of borderline examplar objects (rolling-pin, spatula, frying pan), which are, arguably, items that are oft used across culture, gender and social status, as well as used for longer period of time. Conversely, the peripheral objects (mug, nutcracker, sink-plunger) are used less often in general, and only "sporadically" - i.e. cracking a nut or pouring a mug of tea takes seconds, while rolling out dough or frying food takes relatively longer. One thing worth noting, however, is that the survey scoring system was contrary to the one most often used, and the consequence of this additional taxation might very well have influenced how instinctive – or rather, lack thereof – the answers were, and might potentially have caused participants to answer while instinctively using the more well known ”1 is lesser, 10 is better” system.
In case you're interested but not quite familiar with the terminology, I thought I'd define some of the terms used above, in regards to cognition: Examplar: An object of a category that is considered to correspond heavily with the defining traits of that category. For example, in the category "BIRD", Robin, Swallow, and Blackbird are considered examplars, while Penguin, Kiwi, and Ostrich are not. Prototypicality: Prototypicality is the attribute of acting as a prime example of a category. It's close to the meaning of "examplar", but differs in that Examplar defines the objects which correspond heavily with the defining traits of a category, while the prototypical object is the one that embodies that category. For example, in the category "BIRD", when asking US participants, Robin often shows itself as the prototypical BIRD, while Swallow and Blackbird are not. Try thinking of "VEGETABLE"; the first vegetable that popped into your head is the Prototypical vegetable, and the ones after that are Examplar vegetables. Typicality: The concept that Prototypical/Examplar objects are more easily and more rapidly identified as belong to a category, than other similar objects are. Categorization: How we structure and perceive the world around us into categories with certain criteria. The more criteria an objects meets, the easier it is to place within a given category. Ideal Cognitive Model (ICM): This refers to the idea, that Categorization is not simply frameworks that can be easily distinguished and explained. It is "Idealised" across experiences, rather than focusing on on experience specifically. It attempts to explain how categorization works, when the category becomes more abstract, for example "What to take from ones house during a fire". Metonymic ICM: This is the process by which a category is defined not by its criteria, but by its prototypical object. The traits of the prototypical object is used to identify other members of that category. You probably have a specific image and type in mind when you think of the word "KNIFE", and the properties of that imagined KNIFE is used as a reference to determine whether another object, say, a Scalpel, is also a knife. Propositional ICM: Here, it is neither the criteria of the category, nor the attributes of the prototypical object, which define the objects within the category. It is, instead, the connection those objects share, that results in them being categorized within the same category. Like the survey above, taken at face value, few KITCHEN UTENSILS share the same visual profile, attributes, or modes of use. The thing that categorizes them together, is the fact that they are all placed within - and used in - the kitchen (unless you're a slob like me, of course.) Taxation: Is, much as it sounds, the strain put on an individuals cognitive faculties during any given task. In Working Memory, for example, the notion of Taxation plays heavily into experimentation. Imagine you're tasked with pressing one of two buttons, each corresponding to the color of a circle that shows up at the center of a monitor in front of you. One can increase taxation by, for example, displaying the objects incongruently (not in the same place), or by instructing the subject to press the button for the previous object when the new object appears (Flanker test). Part of your cognitive faculties is removed (taxed) away from the main objective, resulting in either inaccurate or delayed responses.
