Internal Structure of Hierarchies and Basic-level Characteristics and

Any sort of hierarchical structure can be characterized in terms of two relations, a “relation of dominance” and a “relation of differentiation”. As shown in Figure 2.1, the beginner, the superordinate category “ANIMAL” immediately dominates the two basic level categories, which are the “dog” category and the “cat” category. Therefore, the “ANIMAL” category and the “dog” and the “cat” categories form a relation of dominance. Based on identical rationale, the “dog” category forms a relation of dominance with its subdivisions, which are referred to as subordinate categories. The three subordinate categories are also known as the hyponyms of the category of “dog”, and the hyponyms are the “collies”, “Alsatians”, and “pekinese” categories.

Compared with the vertical relation of dominance, horizontal relation of

differentiation manifests itself when the “dog” category is paralleled with the “cat”

category, which may also be termed co-taxonomy. And according to the identical definition, the “collies” category, “Alsatians” category, and “pekinese” category form a relation of differentiation as well. From the hierarchical structure, it is observed that an Alsatian is the hyponym of the “dog” category, and the meaning (sense) of

“Alsatians” is intentionally richer than that of “dog”, since Alsatians possess more (additive) semantic features, such as [+German] than the basic level category of “dog”.

In other words, if Alsatians (of higher specificity) are distinguished from dogs, some specific distinctive features are added. Another point that is worth-mentioned is that the lower level the paralleling (horizontal) comparative members are positioned, the less degree of difference the categories hold from each other (one another). For example, the “collies” category, “Alsatians” category, and “pekinese” category are different from one another, but they are not as different as the pair between the “dog”

category and the “cat” category, since these three subordinate “dog” kinds (breeds)

27

have inherited most of the canine features from the basic level category of “dog”, and only by further specific or detailed idiosyncratic traits can these three slightly

different breeds be distinguished or classified. (Cruse, 1986; 1990; 1994; 2004).

Figure 2.1 Taxonomic Hierarchy of Three Different Levels of Specificity

As to the categories of different levels within a hierarchical structure, there are usually two sorts of categories. One is basic level categories, and the other is non-basic categories. Non basic level categories are composed of two different subtypes, which are superordinate categories and subordinate categories. The boundaries between the basic level categories and non basic level categories

(superordinate and subordinate categories) are always vague and blurring. However, in light of Rosch (1973; 1975), Rosch and Mervis (1975) and Rosch et al. (1976), the characteristics of the basic level were proposed and corroborated with a series of psychological experiments (totally 12). What follows are the summarized traits of basic level categories.

ANIMAL (Superordinate

Category)

DOG (Basic Level

Category)

COLLIES (Subordinate

Category)

ALSATIANS (Subordinate

Category)

PEKINESE (Subordinate

Category) CAT (Basic Level

Category)

28

First of all, basic level categories (e.g. CUTLERY-spoon-tablespoon;

ANIMAL-dog-golden retriever) are the most inclusive categories whose members (dog, cat, elephant from the “ANIMAL” superordinate category) own significant numbers of attributes in common. In other words, there are attributes common to all or most members of the basic category. The categories one level higher/more abstract are superordinate categories (e.g. CUTLERY; ANIMAL), and their members do not share many attributes among each other. For example, one of the most obvious features between “CUTLERY” and “ANIMAL” is [+thing]. The categories below the basic level are subordinate categories (e.g. tablespoon; golden retriever); the

subordinate categories of a certain basic level category “CUTLERY” include teaspoon, tablespoon, or soupspoon. The three hyponymous items mutually share most of the attributes, but these attributes or functions are merely predictable bundles and many of the shared attributes overlap with those of one another. Supported by the three different methods of the experiment, free listing of attributes for object names, judge-amended tallies of attributes for object names, and free listing of attributes for visually present objects, Rosch et al. (1976) confirmed that the basic level is the most inclusive level at which the objects of a category possess significant numbers of attributes in common. Evidenced by the second experiment in which subjects were asked to perform an action/activity with one object: driving a car, eating a banana, putting on a jacket, and painting a wall, the trait of the basic level is that it is the most inclusive level at which there are characteristic patterns of behavioral interaction, or simply put, it has motor movements (programs) which are similar to those of one another. The basic level effects are manifested with a situation that if subjects are asked to sit on a piece of furniture, it is really difficult for the subject to perform the activity without knowing which furniture they pretend to sit on; however, the assignment is relatively easy if it is involved with a more specific piece, like sofa,

29

chair, or desk.

Furthermore, Rosch et al. (1976) further demonstrated that, through the rest of the experiments, basic level categories (basic objects) are the most inclusive

categories for which a clear visual image can be formed. For example, a knife is easier for subjects to be visualized than any item of cutlery, since any item of

“CUTLERY” lacks further specificity that triggers easier imagination or visualization.

Additionally, basic level categories are more frequently used for neutral/natural reference in a daily conversation. For example, A and B are talking about what makes the best pet. And more often than not, they will choose basic level objects, such as

“dog” or “cat” for the target answer. Plus, basic level categories tend to be

morphologically simple, without or seldom with meta-morphological extensions from other categories (Cruse 1986; 2004). For example, the subdivisions of the basic level category of “犬/狗 (dog)”, including “台灣土狗 (Taiwanese-bred dog )”, “牧羊犬 (shepherd dog)”, are the extension from a single morpheme to a multi-morphological words by adding modifying prefixes, such as “台灣土- (Taiwanese-bred-)” and “牧羊 - (shepherd-)”. The last characteristic is associated with acquisition; basic level categories are the earliest categories sorted and named by children, and children initially learn names for objects at the basic level (Anglin, 1977; Brown 1958; Mervis 1983; Rosch et al. 1976).