Abstract
Classification of entities into categories can be determined based on a rule - a single criterion or relatively few criteria combined with logical operations like 'and' or 'or'. Alternatively, classification can be based on similarity to prototypical examples, i.e. an overall degree of match to prototypical values on multiple dimensions. Two cognitive systems are reported in the literature to underlie processing by rules vs. similarity. This paper presents a novel thesis according to which adjectives and nouns trigger processing by the rule vs. similarity systems, respectively. The paper defends the thesis that nouns are conceptually gradable and multidimensional, but, unlike adjectives, their dimensions are integrated through similarity operations, like weighted sums, to yield an overall degree of match to ideal values on multiple dimensions. By contrast, adjectives are associated with single dimensions, or several dimensions bound by logical operations, such as 'and' and 'or'. In accordance, nouns are predicted to differ from adjectives semantically, developmentally, and processing-wise. Similarity-based dimension integration is implicit - processing is automatic, fast, and beyond speaker awareness - whereas logical, rule-based dimension integration is explicit, and is acquired late. The paper highlights a number of links between findings reported in the literature about rule- vs. similarity-based categorization and corresponding structural, distributional, neural and developmental findings about adjectives and nouns. These links suggest that the rule vs. similarity (RS) hypothesis for the adjective-noun distinction should be studied more directly in the future.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 104-147 |
| Number of pages | 44 |
| Journal | Belgian Journal of Linguistics |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2011 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The ideas developed in this paper originate in work on my PhD (Sassoon 2007: Chap. 7), which was made possible by the Orgler Scholarship, Tel Aviv University (2004–2007). Part of the research for this paper was carried out within the project ‘On vagueness – and how to be precise enough’, funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO 360-20-201). I warmly thank my PhD supervisor Dr. Nirit Kadmon, my teacher Prof. Fred Landman and the audience in IATL25 (Ben Gurion University of the Negev), UICM3 (Brussels) and WC2010 (Roma-Tre) for their helpful comments. Special thanks to Bart Geurts and Adar Weidman for insightful remarks on a manuscript that has eventually evolved into part 1, and to Elena Tribushinina and the editors of this volume, especially, Philippe De Brabanter, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Any mistakes are solely mine.
Funding
The ideas developed in this paper originate in work on my PhD (Sassoon 2007: Chap. 7), which was made possible by the Orgler Scholarship, Tel Aviv University (2004–2007). Part of the research for this paper was carried out within the project ‘On vagueness – and how to be precise enough’, funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO 360-20-201). I warmly thank my PhD supervisor Dr. Nirit Kadmon, my teacher Prof. Fred Landman and the audience in IATL25 (Ben Gurion University of the Negev), UICM3 (Brussels) and WC2010 (Roma-Tre) for their helpful comments. Special thanks to Bart Geurts and Adar Weidman for insightful remarks on a manuscript that has eventually evolved into part 1, and to Elena Tribushinina and the editors of this volume, especially, Philippe De Brabanter, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Any mistakes are solely mine.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research | |
| Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek | 360-20-201 |
| Tel Aviv University |