1 categorization

合集下载

! Categorization of genres

Criteria(分类标准） Generic categories are generally defined on the basis of subject matter, formal properties（属性）, style or affective response. subject matter：The science fiction and gangster genres, for example, are defined primarily on the basis of their subject matter: We expect science fiction to immerse us in an imaginary futuristic (未来主义的）world，and we expect the gangster film to tell the story of a gangster. formal properties： Action films and musicals, on the other hand, are distinguishable on account of certain necessary formal qualities: action set-pieces(固定套路） in the case of the former, and song and dance routines for the latter.
Action
Musical Formal Criteria
Presence of action set-pieces
Presence of song and dance performances
Blockbuster Style Film Noir

认知语言学1

这些识解以我们实际上站在不同的角度去观察自行车和汽车为前提。
3.Categorization （范畴化）
Categorization is the process of classifying our experiences into different categories based on commonalities and differences. 范畴化是基于人类经验的异同将我们的经验划分成不同的类型。 •There are three levels in categories: the basic level, the super-ordinate level, and the subordinate level.
The figure-ground alignment seems to apply to space with the ground as the prepositional object and the preposition expressing the spatial relational configuration. It also applies to our perception of moving objects. Since the moving object is typically the most prominent one, because it is moving, it is typically the figure, while the remaining stimuli constituent the ground.图形-背景关系似乎可以运用于空间研究，背景充当
约翰逊把意象图式定义为通过感知的相互作用和运动程序获得的对事物经验给以连贯和结构的循环出现的动态模式。

原型范畴理论

2344rosch等学者认为原型这一概念是进行范畴化的重要方式是范畴中最具代表性最典型的成员最佳样本或范畴的原型成员可作为范畴中其他成员在认知上的参照点又叫认知参照点cognitivereferencepoint进而提出了原型范畴理论和原型效应prototypeeffects范畴中普遍存在非对称性结构范畴中的某些成员比其他成员更具有代表性范畴中非代表性成员常被认为更像代表性成员而不是相反
Prototype
/zjdx www.ydf0. co m / http://www.bj http://www.tecojo. co m
www.fuzzi / http://www.hljz / www.wanj ia120.c om http://www.d xae x. co m www.otml www.shopcarcar www.myc www.ipml www.dxaf n.co m /dx/ /s y/ /hlj/ / wj/ /bjdxb /z y/ / m/ http://km.km120s. co m/ / www.dxaf s.co m www.dxaf b.co m / / / http://www.zbullet .co m/ http://yy.nywcpa.c om/ http://www.isnda. co m/ / / / / /
www.jhdxj /bbs http://www.htszs. co m/ http://www.d xae y. co m/ http://www. welu ke.co m / / m http://www.fjs / http://www.ac /dx/ /s y/ /hlj/ / wj/ /bjdxb /z y/ http://www.dn123 4.co m/ zjd x/d x/ /dxb http://www.tecojo. co m http://www.htszs. co m/ http://www.d xae y. co m/ http://www. welu ke.co m / http://www.d xcccf .co m http://www.d xcf2. co m http://www.12u8.c om / / / / www.jhdxj ? http://www.4hc www.08711000.c om/ www.ani / m/ http://km.km120s. co m/ / www.dxaf s.co m www.dxaf b.co m / www.g zxiejia120. co m http://www. xiejd x. co m/ http://www.aptos / / http://www.oepsi. co m http://www.5 m2p. co m /zjdx/ / http://www.5a35.c om / / http://www.zbullet .co m/ / www.otml http://yy.nywcpa.c om/ http://www.isnda. co m/ http://www.isnda. co m/ http://www.zhong / www.dxdxy www.dxjny www.dxxxy www.shopcarcar www.myc www.ipml www.dxaf n.co m www.fuzzi http://www.hljz

《全科医学》词汇

AAbdominal pains-腹痛Academic bodies-学术机构Academies-专科学校Affiliation-友好关系Afflicted with-受…折磨affluent-丰富的、流畅的algorithm-算法allegiance-效忠Allocation-分配amputation-截肢analgesics-镇痛药Anatomy-解剖Anesthesiology-麻醉学Apothecaries-药剂师Appetite-食欲Apprenticeship-学徒Arbitrary- 任意的Ascertain-确定、查明at intervals-每隔一段时间Attain-达到BBe elusive-难以解释的Belching-嗳气Bereavement-丧亲biopsy-活检bottom up-反转bowel-肠brush aside-扫除、漠视bubble-like-气泡状Buffeted-被冲击Bypass-绕开、忽视CCall for-需要capitation-人头税Categorization-分类、分门别类causal-因果的Causation of disease-病因cessation-停止Cfs-慢性疲劳综合症Chart-图表Chief complaint-主诉Chills-寒颤Chiropractic-脊髓按摩Cholecystectomy-胆囊切除术Clinical Guidelines-临床指南Cognitive-认知的、认识的Coherence-一致性、连贯性cold remedies-感冒药Collaboration-协作Collaborative-协作的Colonies-殖民地Complication-并发症Comprehensibility-理解能力Comprehensive-综合的Compulsory-强制义务的Condemned-被定罪的Conduct-行为Congenital-先天性Congruent-适合的、一致的Conserve resource-优化资源Consistency-一致性Consultation-咨询Context-环境Contracts-合同、契约Convening-召开Convulsions-抽搐Coordinate-协调Cope-处理Correlation-相关Cortisone-可的松，肾上腺皮质酮Cost effective-划算的Covary-共变Craft skill-工艺技术Craftsman-匠人Crisis-危机Criterion-标准Crucible-严酷的考验Cues-线索、开端Cultivate-培养Curability-词根cure，治愈可能性Curriculum-课程DDe novo-重新,更始,来自拉丁语Defined-明确的Definitive-最后的、决定的deleterious-有害demoralization-道德败坏denied-拒绝denote-指示Deny-否认depletion-耗尽detached-分离的、超然的Deterioration-恶化Devastate-毁灭differential diagnosis-鉴别诊断Diffuse-散开的Discipline-学科；纪律Disclosing-公开Discretionary-自由决定的Discretion-判断力Dislocating-使脱臼；使混乱Disorder-失调,错乱Disorganized-紊乱的、无组织的Dispense-分发Disposal-处理、清理Dispute-争议Dissent-不同意Distress-危难；不幸Dizziness-头晕眼花Domicile-住宅Dramatic-激动人心的Dustrophy-营养障碍Dynorphins-强啡肽Dysfunctional-功能失调的Dyspepsia-消化不良Dystrophy-营养障碍EEconomic-经济的ectopic pregnancy-异位妊娠Ectopic-异常的Eliminate waste-消除浪费Elusive-难懂的，难以捉摸的Emancipate-释放Embark-从事、着手Emergence-出现Empiric-经验Encompassed-包绕、环绕Engage-召集、参加Enhancement-增加、放大、提高Enkephalin-脑啡肽Enquiry-询问Ensuing-随后的enuresis-夜尿Epidemics-流行病episodes-发作Episode-片段；一段经历Equilibrium-平衡Ethics-伦理学Evolved from-由…进化来Excessive-过度的exempted from-免除exerted-外露extended-扩充的extroversion-外向性FFaculties-教职员工Fainting spell-昏厥Family Physician/Doctor-全科(家庭)医生Fatigue-疲倦Feasible-可行的Febrile-发热fee for service-服务费Fixation-固定Flatus-屁food hygiene-食品卫生Formation-形成Foster-培养、形成Fragile-脆的、易碎的Fragment from-从…分裂出Free floating anxiety-游离性焦虑GGeneral practitioner-通科医生General/family medicine-全科(家庭)医学General/family practice-全科(家庭)医疗Generalists-通才Gum-牙龈Gynecologists-妇科医生Hhemoglobin-血红蛋白Hemorrhoids/piles-痔疮Hiccup-打嗝Hinting-暗示Holistic-整体Horizontal integration-横向合并hospitalization-住院治疗Hypnosis-催眠Hypothesis-假设IIllustrate-说明Immediacy-直接性Implication-暗示、含义in indemnity-损害赔偿Inclination-倾向Incompetent-无能力的Incongruous Referral-不协调的转诊病人Incorporated-包含入内的indemnity insurance-赔偿保险Infirmity-体弱的Influential-有影响力的人informed consent-知情同意Inherent-固有的、内在的、遗传的、与生俱来的Innovation-创新Insight-(更深刻/肤浅的)理解Inspection-检查Integrated with-一体化Intercostal-肋间部分Interpersonal-人际关系的Intervention-干预Interview survey-访谈Intestinal infections-肠道感染Intimates-密友；贴身衣物Intuitively-直观的Investigation-调查研究Irreversible-无可挽回irritable bowel syndrome-肠道易激综合症irritable colon syndrome-结肠激惹综合症.JK Key figure-关键人物Kinship-亲属关系Kin-亲戚、同族LLabels-标签、贴标签、分类Lump-肿块MM.R.C.S-皇家学院外科医师会员Maintenance-维护、维持Malady-严重的疾病Malpractice suits-治疗不当所致的诉讼案件Malpractice-治疗不当Mammography frequency-乳房x光检查频率Manageability-管理能力Mandatory-强迫、命令Maneuver-演戏、谨慎或熟练的动作、巧计Manifested-显示、证明Manipulation-操作Manufacture-制造Marital status-婚姻状况Mastectomy-乳房切除术Mechanoceptors-机械感受器Meditation-冥想Menstruation-月经Metaphors-隐喻Migraine-偏头痛Miniature-微型的Mirage-幻想、妄想Mitigate-减轻Mobilize-动员Morbidity-发病率Mortality-死亡率Mortal-致命的NNaturopathy-物理疗法Neglect-疏忽Neurology-神经科neuroticism-神经质Non febrile convulsions-非发热性痉挛Nonverbal-不用语言的Normative-规范的Norms-规范、准则Nurtured-培育OObesity-肥胖Objective-目标Obligations-义务obsession-强迫Obsolete-过时的Obstetrics-产科Occupation-工作Omnipresent-无所不在的Ontario-安大略湖、安大略省Optimism-乐观主义Organelles-细胞器Orientation-定位、情况介绍Otolaryngology-耳鼻喉科Overlap-部分重叠、重复Overrides-压倒Override-推翻、不顾PPaediatricians-儿科医生PAP smears-子宫颈涂片Paradigm-范例、模式paranoid-偏执Pathogenicity-致病性、病原性Pattern-模式Perceive-感知、认知Percentile-百分位；百分率的Peristalsis-蠕动Persistent-持续的Perspective-观点Pessimism-悲观主义pest control-害虫防治Pest-害虫、有害之人PE-体格检查PHE-公共卫生Pickings-抠（鼻）或剔（牙）pneumococcal-肺炎链球菌Polygraph-测谎仪Poverty-贫困precede-优先于Precepts-规则Precepts-戒律Precise-精确的、精密的、严格的Precursor-先驱、前导，先兆（症状）Predominance-显著Prescribe-开处方给医嘱Prescription-药方Prestige-威望Presymptomatic-症状发生前的Privileges-特权.Profession-专业Profiel-概括、简况Profoundly-深刻地Progress-进步Prominent-突出的卓越的Prospective study-前瞻性研究Provision-供给psychiatric disease-精神疾病Psychiatry-精神病学Pursuit-追求QRRange-范围Rapport-人际关系Rash-皮疹Recommendations-推荐规范Recurrent-复发的、周期性的Referrals-引荐Referral-转诊Refraining-调整认知refuse disposal-垃圾处理Regression analysis-回归分析Relay-接班、接力赛、接班人Reluctant-不情愿的Remit-缓和、免除Renovation-革新Residence-住处、居住Respondents-调查对象Retrospective surveys-回顾性研究Reveal-透露Rigid-严格的Rigour-僵硬Rigour-震颤risk sharing provision-风险分担规定Rituals-典礼、宗教仪式Royal-皇室Rubric-标题SSalutogenesis-健康本源学Sanitation-环境卫生Scapegoats-替罪羊Scattered-分散的Schizophrenia-精神分裂症scope-范围scratchings-刮伤Screening-筛查Self Assessed Health-自我健康评价Session-会议Shakes-震颤Sheer-纯；纯粹的；十足的；全然的、偏倚Shuttle-往返simple correlations-简单相关smoking cessation-戒烟Sneezing-打喷嚏SOC（sense of coherence）-条理感、一致感、统合感（是Antonovsky这个人提出来的一种人与其所处环境之间的和谐一致状态）Social contexts-社会环境social obligations-社会责任somatic symptoms-躯体症状Somatization-躯体化specialists-专科医生Specialization-专门化spousal-结婚的Squander-浪费、滥用staphylococcal-葡萄球菌所致的Stool-粪便Streptococcal-链球菌所致的Subjective-主观的、个人的、自觉的subsequent-随后的Substance abuse-药物滥用subtle cues-精细的线索Subtle-微妙的Suffocating-窒息的Surgery-外科Surveillance-监督Sweat-汗TTerminology-术语Term-术语Tertiary-第三的the irritable colon syndrome-结肠激惹综合症Therapists-治疗师Tinged-轻微地影响traps-陷阱Trauma-创伤Triggers-诱导Trivia-琐事UUltrasound-超声波Underreporting-报道不够、强调不够Unmet-未满足的Unrivaled-无敌的、无比的、至高无上的Unrivaled-至高无上的unwary-粗心的Uprooting-根除Urgency-紧迫VVaginal-阴道的Valuation-评价Vertical integration-纵向合并vital signs-主要症状Vomiting- 呕吐Vulnerable-易感、易受伤害的WWholesale-批量地Win(flatus)-屁Wind (flatus)-屁WONCA (World Organization of National College and Academies of General Practice/Family Medicine)-世界家庭医生组织Yyield-收益。

语言学Categorization

members of neighboring categories
they are much less informative relative to their immediate
2
superior category
they are frequently polymorphemic, the most common pattern
superordinate categories have fewer defining features than basic level categories
immediate superordinate of basic level categories often have a singleattribute relation to higher superordinate category
Categorization
definition:
is the process in which ideas and objects are recognized, differentiated, and understood. is a major ingredient in the creation of human knowledge.
linguistically, names for superordinate categories are often mass nouns when basic level terms are count l
a composite form typically combines two or more words that signify basis level categories,like rain coat, apple juice, and wheel chair.

刻板印象的理论与研究方法综述

杨亚平1，王沛21宁波大学教师教育学院，浙江宁波 (315211)2上海师范大学教育学院，上海（200234）E-mail：yaping.yang@摘要：刻板印象是指按照性别、种族、年龄或职业等进行社会分类，形成的关于某类人的固定印象，普遍认为它与某些特征和行为相联系。

自刻板印象这一概念提出以来，就引起了社会心理学界广泛而持久的研究兴趣，作为用以解释社会知觉与印象形成过程的重要操作性构念，刻板印象一直以来都是社会认知领域的核心研究课题。

本文对刻板印象研究的理论进展以及研究方法进行了系统的回顾和总结，以期为以后的研究提供理论和方法的依据。

关键词：刻板印象，理论模型，研究方法1．引言刻板印象这一术语是1922年Lippman在其著作《公众舆论》中提出的，它是指按照性别、种族、年龄或职业等进行社会分类，形成的关于某类人的固定印象，普遍认为它与某些特征和行为相联系；从认知理论的角度出发，刻板印象可以定义为“一种涉及知觉者的关于某个人类群体的知识、观念与预期的认知结构”[1]。

自刻板印象这一概念提出以来，就引起了社会心理学界广泛而持久的研究兴趣。

作为用以解释社会知觉与印象形成过程的重要的操作性构念，刻板印象一直是社会认知领域的研究热点。

早期的刻板印象研究主要集中于对刻板印象概念的界定，以及对不同群体刻板印象内容的评估。

然而从20世纪70年代初开始，受认知心理学的影响，刻板印象的研究开始从内容向加工转移，这时的研究主要集中在作为一种认知结构的刻板印象是如何发生的，它又是如何影响后继的信息加工以及群体成员之间的知觉和行为的；研究视角也开始逐渐从意识代码的角度演变到认知神经科学的角度。

2．刻板印象的主要理论模型从不同的角度出发，刻板印象的理论模型主要体现在三个方面：刻板印象的理论解释，刻板印象的表征模型以及刻板印象的功效模型，下面从各模型理论进展的做一概述。

2.1 刻板印象的理论解释刻板印象的理论解释，其研究进展的趋势是由社会认同理论、社会认知理论到社会环境影响理论。

categorization

CategorizationClassical Theory & Prototype Theory of CategorizationClassical theory: necessary and sufficient conditions Prototype theory: fuzzy boundaries + typicality effectsThe Classical TheoryThe ‘classical theory’of categorisation was the prevalent model since the time of Aristotle and holds that conceptual and linguistic categories have definitional structure. This means that an entity represents a category member by virtue of fulfilling a set of necessary and (jointly) sufficient conditions for category membership.Classical Definition of BachelorBACHELOR [+unmarried +male +adult]a. The Popeb. Tarzanc. An adult male living with his girlfriendd. A male homosexuale. A male homosexual living with his boyfriendf. A seventeen-year-old living on his own, running his own Internet firm, and dating several women. [cf. a seventeen-year-old living with his parents andgoing to school, who virtually all agree is not a bachelor]The definitional problem of the classical theoryIt is remarkably difficult to identify a precise set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient to define a category. This requires the identification of all those features that are shared by all members of a category (necessary features) and that together are sufficient to define that category (no more features are required). Game ExampleThe game example by Wittgenstein reveals that there is no single set of conditions that is shared by every member of the category GAME. While some games are characterised by AMUSEMENT, like tiddlywinks, others are characterised byLUCK, like dice games, still others by SKILL or by COMPETITION, like chess.In other words, it appears to be impossible to identify a definitional structure that neatly defines this category.The problem of conceptual fuzziness of the classical theoryA second problem with the classical view is that definitional structure entails that categories have definite and distinct boundaries. In other words, an entity either will or will not possess the ‘right’properties for category membership.FURNITURE: table chair TV set combBIRD: robin sparrow penguin ostrichThe problem of prototypicality of the classical theoryThe problem of prototypicality concerns what happens at the centre of a category.If each member of a category shares the same definitional structure, then each member should be equally ‘typical’.Table or chair are good (typical) examples of the category FURNITURE. Carpet is a less good example.From Classical Theory to Prototype Theory: Two ExperimentsExperimental psychology has shown that we use focal or prototypical colors as points of orientation, and comparable observations have also been made with categories denoting shapes, animals, plants and man-made objects.Experiment by Berlin and KayExperiment by LabovEarly Empirical Research into Lexical CategoriesThe result of the comparison of the focal colorsFocal colors are not only shared by the speakers of one and the same language but they are also very consistent across different languagesColor categorization is anchored in focal colors.The boundaries of color categories vary between languages and even between speakers of one language.Focal colors are shared by different speakers and different languagecommunities.Focal colors are perceptually more salient than non-focal colors. The attention of 3 year olds is more often attracted by focal than by non-focal colors, and 4 year olds match focal colors more accurately to a given display of other focal colors than non-focal colors.Focal colors are more accurately remembered in short-term memory and more easily retained in long-term memory.The names of focal colors are more rapidly produced in color-naming tasks and are acquired earlier by children.Focal colors appear to possess a particular perceptual-cognitive salience, which is probably independent of language.The salience of focal colors reflects certain physiological aspects of man’s perceptive mechanisms.Focal color might relate to certain universally occurring phenomena like day and night (white and black), the sun (red), vegetation (green), the sky (blue) and the ground (brown) (Wierzbicka 1990).Rosch replaced Berlin and Kay’s “focus”with prototype since “focal”suggests a central position. “Prototype”stood for artificially created “best examples”and focal colors were natural prototypes.Experiment by William Labov (1973, 1978)The fuzziness of category boundaries has many facets, of which context-dependenceIs one of the most important.Labov’s FindingsCategories do not represent arbitrary divisions of the phenomena of the world, but should be seen as based on the cognitive capacities of the human mind. Cognitive categories of colors, shapes, but also of organisms and concrete objects, are anchored in conceptually salient prototypes, which play a crucial part in the formation of categories.The boundaries of cognitive categories are fuzzy, i.e., neighboring categories are not separated by rigid boundaries, but merge into each other.Between prototypes and boundaries, cognitive categories contain members which can be rated on a typicality scale ranging from good to bad examples. Prototype theoryPrototype theory is most closely associated with the experimental research of cognitive psychologist Eleanor Rosch and her colleagues.Principles of categorisation(1) the principle of cognitive economy(2) the principle of perceived world structurePrinciple of cognitive economyThis principle states that an organism, like a human being, attempts to gain as much information as possible about its environment while minimising cognitive effort and resources. This cost-benefit balance drives category formation. In other words, rather than storing separate information about every individual stimulus experienced,humans can group similar stimuli into categories, which maintains economy in cognitive representation.Principle of perceived world structureThe world around us has correlational structure. For instance, it is a fact about the world that wings most frequently co-occur with feathers and the ability to fly (as in birds), rather than with fur or the ability to breathe underwater. This principle states that humans rely upon correlational structure of this kind in order to form and organise categories.The categorisation systemGood examples, bad examples and category boundariesCategory membership is not a yes-or-no distinction. Rather it involves different degrees of typicality.Categories are formed around prototypes, which function as cognitive reference points.Some concrete entities do not have clear-cut boundaries in reality: e.g., body parts Vagueness applies to boundaries of entities. Mountains are vague because they are not clearly delimited as individual entities.Fuzziness/fuzzy category boundary applies to boundaries of the cognitive categories. The cognitive category of MOUNTAIN (or KNEE or FOG) is fuzzy because it does not have clear boundaries either.Comparison of some attributes for ROBIN and OSTRICHThe Internal Structure of Categories: Prototypes, Attributes, Family Resemblances Categorization is the process in which experiences and concepts are recognized and understood. Categorization implies that concepts are classified into categories based on commonalities and usually for some specific purpose. Categorization is fundamental in decision making, in all kinds of interaction with the environment, and in language. Categorization is central issue in Cognitive Linguistics in which it is argued to be one of the primary principles of conceptual and linguistic organization. PrototypeA relatively abstract mental representation that assembles the key attributes or features that best represent instances of a given category. Accordingly, the prototype is viewed as a schematic representation of the most salient or central characteristics associated with members of the category in question. According to Prototype Theory, the prototype provides structure to and serves to organise a given category, a phenomnon known as prototype structure. An important consequence of this is that categories exhibit typicality effects.The Attribute Structure of Prototype CategoriesPrototypical members of cognitive categories have the largest number of attributes in common with other members of the category and the smallest number of attributes which also occur with members of neighbouring categories. This means that in terms of attributes, prototypical members are maximally distinct from the prototypical members of other categories.Bad examples (or marginal category members) share only a small number of attributes with other members of their category, but have several attributes which belong to other categories as well, which is, of course, just another way of saying that category boundaries are fuzzy.Family ResemblanceThe principle of family resemblances: raised by Ludwig Wittgeinstein in his much-quoted passage about the category GAME.Wittgenstein’s Conclusion: Games are connected by a network of overlapping similarities, which he called family resemblances.On a somewhat more abstract level, the principle of family resemblances has been defined as a set of items of the form AB, BC, CD, DE. That is, each item has at least one, and probably several, elements in common with one or more other items, but no, or few, elements are common to all items. (Rosch and Mervis 1975: 575)Levels of CategorizationTaxonomies of categories are organized into levels of categorization. There are three levels:Superordinate level: Superordinate categories are the most general ones. They are the ones that are at the top of a folk taxonomy).Basic, or generic, level: categories at the basic, or middle, level are perceptually and conceptually the more salient. The generic level of a category tends to elicit the most responses and richest images, providing a basic gestalt, and seems to be the psychologically basic level. Basic level categories are members of superordinate level categories.Subordinate level: Subordinate level categories are the most specific ones. They are the members of the basic level categories. They have clearly identifiable gestalts and many individuating specific features.Characteristics of prototypicality1) categories are defined in terms of a family of resemblance rather than by means of a set of necessary and sufficient features2) membership in a category is determined by the perceived distance of resemblance of the entity to the prototype, there is no clear-cut boundaries. But there is a continumm3) All members of a category don’t enjoy equal status.The context-dependence of prototypesThe hunter took his gun, left the lodge and called his dog. (retriever)Right from the start of the race the dogs began chasing the rabbit. (greyhound) She took her dog to the salon to have its curls reset. (poodle)The policemen lined up with the dogs to face the rioters. (Alsatian)What turns out the most likely member of a certain category depends on the context.The two-fold effect of contextThe context can change the weight of attributes that seem to be relevant for a certain category.The context can emphasize attributes that are not prominent and even introduce new attributes which would not be mentioned at all in non-contextualized attribute-listing experiments.。

英语单词全脑高效记忆法

英语单词全脑高效记忆法1. 分类记忆法（Categorization）。

将单词分为不同的类别，如动物、颜色、数字、食物等，便于记忆和提取。

例如：记忆数字0-9，将其分为“圆形数字”和“直线数字”，然后再针对每个类别进行具体记忆。

2. 联想记忆法（Association）。

将一个单词和另一个单词或者一个形象联系起来，便于形成记忆联想。

例如：记忆单词“apple”，可以联想到“a happy people”，这样可以使单词更加生动有趣，更容易记忆。

3. 故事记忆法（Storytelling）。

将单词串联成一个故事，使得单词之间相互联系，便于记忆和回忆。

例如：记忆单词“cat、bag、coat、bat”，可以编一个故事，如“一只猫拿着一个包和一件外套在玩蝙蝠”，这样可以使单词组成的故事更加生动有趣。

4. 视觉记忆法（Visualisation）。

通过图像化的方式来进行记忆，将单词转换成具体的图像或者场景，便于记忆和提取。

例如：记忆单词“car”，可以想象一张图片，其中有一辆汽车在行驶。

5. 缩写记忆法（Acronym）。

将单词的首字母组合起来，形成一个新的缩写单词，便于记忆和提取。

例如：记忆较长的单词“International Business Machine”，可以简化成“IBM”。

6. 词根词缀记忆法（Root and Affixes）。

词根指单词中具有独立意义的部分，词缀指单词中附加在词根之后的部分，通过记忆词根和词缀的组合形式，可以记忆单词的意义和用法。

例如：记忆单词“autobiography”，可以通过词根“auto”（自己）和“bio”（生命）以及词缀“graphy”（写作）分析出单词的意思。

7. 反复朗读记忆法（Repetition）。

通过反复朗读单词来进行记忆，可以帮助加深记忆和提高记忆的可靠性。

例如：背诵单词时可以反复的重复单词，直到能够熟练记忆。

语言学 - 副本

语言学名词解释：一．Meaning :1.The referential theory : the meaning of a word to the thing it refers to or stands for .2.Conceptualism : There is no direct link betweena linguistic form and what it refers to . In the interpretation of meaning , they are linked through the mediation of concept in the mind . 3.Contextualism : Meaning should be studied in terms of situation , use , context --- elements closely linked with language behavior .4.Behaviorism : The meaning of a linguistic form should be viewed as “the situation in which the speaker ulters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer ”.5.Meanings of meaning :(1)Conceptual meaning : is the meaning given in the dictionary and it forms the core of the word meaning . The same word has the same conceptual meaning to all the speakers of the same language .(2)Connotative meaning : it refers to overtones which a words suggests or implies .(3)Social meaning ( stylistic meaning ) : It’s the level of meaning that we rely on , when we identify certain social characteristics of speakers and situations from the words used the communication .(4)Affective meaning (情感意义): It’s the level of meaning that conveys the language users feelings , attitudes , and points about a particular piece of information or about the on going context .(5)Reflected meaning : It’s the level of meaning which conveys the unfavorable association or reflection .(6)Collocative meaning (搭配意义)：It consists of the associations a word acquires in collocation or the part of the word meanings suggested by the words before or after the word in discussion . (7)Thematic meaning (主位意义) ：It’s determined by the order of the words in the sentence and the different prominence they each receive . 二．Antonymy (反义)1.Gradable antonymy : They are oftenintermediate forms between the two members ofsuch a pair .plementary antonymy : The denial of onemember of the pair implies the assertion of theother .3.Converse antonymy : This is the special type ofantonymy in that the members of a pair do notconstitute a positive -negative opposition . Theyshow the reversal of a relationship between 2entities .三．Superordinate (上义词)A superordinate usually has several hyponyms(下义词). Under flower , there are peony ,jasmine , tulip , violet and many others apart fromrose . These members of the same class areco-hyponyms (并列下义词) .四．Hyponymy (上下义关系)It’s the sense of relation between a more generalor more inclusive word and a more specific word .It’s the relationship where the meaning of oneword is included in the meaning of another word .五．Homonymy (同音异义)：It refers to the words having differentmeanings ,have the same form . Different wordsare identical in sound or spelling or in both .六．Componential analysis : (成分)Componential analysis is a way to analyse lexicalmeaning . This approach is based on the beliefthat the meaning of a word can be analysed intomeaning components called semanticcomponents or semantic features .七．Predication (述谓构成) ：Predication refers to the abstraction of themeaning of a sentence . A prediction consists ofArgument and Predicate . An argument is alogical participant in a predication , largelyidentical with the nominal elements in a sentence .A predicate is something said about an argument ,or it states the logical relation linking thearguments in a sentence .八.Locutionary act (发话行为) :an act of saying something that’s an act ofmaking a meaningful utterance .九．Illocutionary act (行事行为)：An act performed in saying something , that’s insaying X I was doing Y .十．Perlocutionary act (取效行为)：An act performed as a result of saying X anddoing Y I did Z .十一．5 basic types of speech acts :1.Representatives(陈述) :The illocutionary act of representatives is tocommit the speaker to the truth of something .2.Directives (指令) ：The illocutionary act of directives is to get thespeaker to do something .mssives(许诺)：The illocutionary act of commssives is to committhe speaker to some future action .4. Expressives (表情) ：The illocutionary act of expressives is to expressthe psychological state about something .5.Declaratives (声明) ：The illocutionary act of declaratives is to bringabout immediate change of existing state ofaffairs .十二．SociolinguisticsIt’s a branch of macrolinguistics which studys therelationship between the language and society .十三．Speech community (言语社团) ：It refers to the social group that is singled out forany special socio-linguistic study .十四．Speech variety (语言变体) ：It’s also known as language variety . It refers toany distinguishable form of speech used by aspeaker or a group of speakers .十五．Dialectal varieties / Dialects (方言变体) ：1.Regional dialect :It’s a language variety used by people living in the same geographical region .2.Temporal dialect :It’s a language variety determined by time people lived in .3.Sociolect :It’s a language variety characteristic of a particular social class .4.Idiolect (个人方言) ：It’s a personal dialect of an individual speaker that combines elements regarding regional , social , gender and age variations .5.Standard dialect :It’s a particular language variety that has no connection with a particular region but widely accepted and normally used in a official document , newspaper , newscast , taught in schools and to non-native speakers .十六．Pidgin (洋泾浜语) ：It’s a special language variety that mixes or blends language . It’s used by people who speak different language for restricted purposes such as trading . Ex: “ Long time no see ” .十七．Creole (克里奥尔语/混合语)When a Pidgin has become the primary language of a speech community and it’s acquired by the children of that speech community as their native language . It’s said to have become a Creole .十八．Bilingualism (双语现象) ：In some speech communities , 2 languages are used side by side with each having a different road to play and language switching occurs when the situation changes . These constitutes the situation of bilingualism .十九．Diglossia (双语体) ：It refers to a sociolinguistic situation similar to bilingualism . But instead of 2 different languages , in a diglossia situation , 2 varieties of a language exist side by side throughout the community with each having a definite road to play . 二十. Registers (语域) ：（1）Narrow : occupation（2）Broad : It’s a language variety resultedfrom configuration of several contextualfeatures .二十一. Code switching （语码转换）：It refers to the alteration between one or morelanguages , dialects and registers . In the courseof discourse , between people who have morethan one language in common .二十二. Linguistic determinism : (语言决定论)Our language helps mould our way of thinking .Language may determine our thinking patterns .二十三. Linguistic relativity : (语言相对论)（1）Different languages may probably expressspeakers’unique ways of understanding theworld . (2) Similarity between languages isrelative . (3) For two different speechcommunities , the greater their structuraldifferentiation is , the more diverse theirconceptualization of the world will be .二十四. Cognitive Linguistics (认知语言学)：1.Categorization范畴化(superordinate--basic--subordinate越来越具体)Categorization is a process of classifying ofexperience into different categories , based oncommonalities and differences .(1)Superordinate level（上谓层次）--- the mostgeneral onesSuperordinate categories are the most generalones . The members of a Superordinate categoriesdo not have enough features in common toconjure up a common gestalt at this level . This isparasitical categorization . The idea is that youactually borrow some features from a basic levelcategory and apply them to the Superordinatecategory .(a)Superordinate categories are less goodcategories than basic level categories , becausealthough members are relatively distinct frommembers of neighboring categories ,within-category resemblance is relatively low ;(b) Superordinate categories have fewer definingfeatures than basic level categories ;(c) Immediate superordinates of basic levelcategories often have a single-attribute relation toa higher superordinate category .(d) Linguistically , names for superordinatecategories are often mass nouns (集合名词)when basic level terms are count nouns .(2)Basic level (基本层次) -- based on (1) and (3The categories at the basic level are those that aremost culturally salient and are required to fulfillour cognitive needs the best .（a）It is the most inclusive level at which thereare characteristic patterns of behavioralinteraction . (b) The most inclusive level forwhich a clear visual image can be formed . (c)The most inclusive level at which part-wholeinformation is represented . The level used foreveryday reference .(3)Subordinate level (下属层次) -- the mostspecific onesThey have clearly identifiable gestalts and lots ofindividual specific features . At this level weperceive the differences between the members ofthe basic level categories . They are typicallycomposite forms . One such example is that ofcompound nouns .(a)Subordinate categories are less goodcategories than basic categories , becausealthough their members have high mutualresemblance , they have low distinctiveness frommembers of neighboring categories .(b)They are such less informative relative totheir immediate superior category .(c)They are frequently polymorphemic(复合词素词的），the most common pattern beingmodifier-head .2.Image scheme 意象图示：Mark Johnson defines an image schema as a recurring , dynamic pattern of our perceptual interactions and motor programs that gives coherence and structure to our experience . Image schematic structures have two characteristics : they are pre-conceptual schematic structures emerging from our bodily experience and they are constantly operating in our perceptual interaction , bodily movement through space , and physical manipulation(处理) of objects .（1）A center-periphery schema 中心边缘图示：(如：家人朋友在中心)It involves a physical or metaphorical core and edge , and degrees of distance from the core . Ex : the structure of an apple , an individual’s perceptual sphere (感知的范围) ，an individual’s social sphere , with family and friends at the core and others at the outside .（2）A containment schema 容器图示：It is an image schema that involves a physical or metaphorical boundary , enclosed(隔绝的）area or volume , or excluded area or volume . A containment schema has additional optional(可选择的) properties(内容、性能) ，such as transitivity (及物的) of enclosure (附件，围墙) ，objects inside or outside the boundary , protection of an enclosed object , the restriction of forces inside the enclosure , and the relatively fixed position of an enclosed object . 例句：John went out of the classroom . The ship came into our view .(3) A cycle schema 循环图示（对时间的认识）：It involves repetitious events and event series . Its structure includes the following : a starting point , a progression through successive(连续的) events without backtracking(回溯)，a return to the initial state . The schema has often superimposed(重叠) on it a structure that builds toward a climax and then goes through a decline . Ex: days , weeks ,years ,sleeping and waking ,breathing , circulation , emotional buildup and release (情感积累与释放).（4）A force schema 力图示：It involves physical or metaphorical causal interaction . It includes the following elements : a source（起源）and target of the force , a directionand intensity of the force , a path of motion （移动路径）from a source to a target , a sequence ofcausation（一系列因果关系）. Here are somekinds of force schemas : an attraction schema , abalance schema , a blockage（堵塞，妨碍）schema , a compulsion schema , a counterforceschema , a diversion schema , an enablement （启动）schema , a restraint (抑制，约束)removal（排除）schema .（5）A link schema 连接图示（朋友圈、手机充电）It consists of two or more entities , connectedphysically or metaphorically , and the bondbetween them . Here are some examples : a childholding her mother’s hand , someone plugging alamp into the wall , a causal “connection”,kinship “ties” .(6) A path schema 路径图示（空间移动）It involves physical or metaphorical movementfrom place to place , and consists of a startingpoint , a goal , and a series of intermediate (中间的)points . This can be exemplified（证明）bypaths and trajectories（轨道）. 例句：Tom hadgone a long way to change his personality .(7) A part-whole schema 部分-整体图示It involves physical or metaphorical wholes alongwith their parts and a configuration of the parts .Ex : the body and its parts , the family and thecaste (种姓) structure of India .(8) A scale schema 标量图示It involves an increase or decrease of physical ormetaphorical amount , and consists of any of thefollowing : a closed-end or open-end progressionof amount , a position in the progression ofamount , one or more norms(标准，定额) ofamount , a calibration(刻度，标度) of amount .Here are some examples : physical amounts ,properties in the number system .(9) A verticality schema 垂直图示It involves “up” and “down” relations . Here aresome examples of verticality schemas : standingupright , climbing stairs , viewing a flagpole ,watching water rise in a tub .3.Conceptual Metaphor 概念隐喻：It’s defined as understanding one conceptualdomain in terms of another conceptual domain ,based on similarity . Conceptual Metaphorstypically use a more abstract(抽象的) concept astarget and a more concrete（具体的）or physicalconcept as their source .In cognitive linguistics , metaphors arerepresented by a simple formula : “X is Y”, inwhich X is the target domain and Y is the sourcedomain .(1)Ontological metaphors : 实体隐喻Ontological metaphors means that humanexperiences with physical objects provide thebasis for ways of viewing events ,activities ,emotions , ideas , etc , as entities and substances .Ontological metaphors can serve variouspurposes . By Ontological metaphors we givebounded surfaces to less clearly discrete entities(mountains , hedges, street corners) andcategorize events , actions and states assubstances .例子：Inflation is lowering our standard of living .(Inflation is an entity there ,It means rising prices).1) He is out of the race now.2)We are out of trouble now.LIFE IS A CONTAINER.1) A cup has a mouth.2) A teapot has an ear.3) A table has feet(2)Structural metaphors 结构隐喻Structural metaphors play the mostimportant role because it allows us togo beyond orientation and referringand gives us the possibility tostructure one concept according toanother . This means that Structuralmetaphors are grounded in ourexperience . Structural metaphorsimply how one concept ismetaphorically structured in terms ofanother .结构隐喻就是使用一种高清晰结构的概念隐喻来建构其他的隐喻。

Principles of categorization

Principles of CategorizationEleanor Rosch, 1978University of California, BerkeleyFirst publised in: Rosch, Eleanor and Lloyd, Barbara B. (eds), Cognition and categorization 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.The following is a taxonomy of the animal kingdom. It has been attributed to an ancient Chinese encyclopedia entitled the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge:On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e)mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in thisclassification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, j) innumerable ones, (k)those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have justbroken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance (Borges, 1966, p.108).Conceptually, the most interesting aspect of this classification system is that it does not exist. Certain types of categorizations may appear in the imagination of poets, but they are never found in the practical or linguistic classes of organisms or of man-made objects used by any of the cultures of the world. For some years, I have argued that human categorization should not be considered the arbitrary product of historical accident or of whim but rather the result of psychological principles of categorization, which are subject to investigation. This chapter is a summary and discussion of those principles.The chapter is divided into five parts.The first part presents the two general principles that are proposed to underlie categorization systems.The second part shows the way in which these principles appear to result in a basic and primary level of categorization in the levels of abstraction in a taxonomy: It is essentially asummary of the research already reported on basic level objects (Rosch et al., 1976). Thus the second section may be omitted by the reader already sufficiently familiar with that material.The third part relates the principles of categorization to the formation of prototypes in those categories that are at the same level of abstraction in a taxonomy. In particular, this section attempts to clarify the operational concept of prototypicality and to separate that concept from claims concerning the role of prototypes in cognitive processing, representation, and learning for which there is little evidence.The fourth part presents two issues that are problematical for the abstract principles of categorization stated in Part 1: (1) the relation of context to basic level objects and prototypes; and (2) assumptions about the nature of the attributes of real-world objects that underlie the claim that there is structure in the world.The fifth part is a report of initial attempts to base an analysis of the attributes, functions, and contexts of objects on a consideration of objects as props in culturally defined events.It should be noted that the issues in categorization with which we are primarily concerned have to do with explaining the categories found in a culture and coded by the language of that culture at a particular point in time. en we speak of the formation of categories, we mean their formation in the culture. This point is often misunderstood. The principles of categorization proposed are not as such intended to constitute a theory of the development of categories in children born into a culture nor to constitute a model of how categories are processed (how categorizations are made) in the minds of adult speakers of a language.THE PRINCIPLESTwo general and basic principles are proposed for the formation of categories:The first has to do with the function of category systems and asserts that the task of category systems is to provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort.The second principle has to do with the structure of the information so provided and asserts that the perceived world comes as structured information rather than as arbitrary or unpredictable attributes. Thus maximum information with least cognitive effort is achieved if categories map the perceived world structure as closely as possible. This condition can be achieved either by the mapping of categories to given attribute structures or by the definition or redefinition of attributes to render a given set of categories appropriately structured.These principles are elaborated in the following.Cognitive Economy.The first principle contains the almost common-sense notion that, as an organism, what one wishes to gain from one's categories is a great deal of information about the environment while conserving finite resources as much as possible. To categorize a stimulus means to consider it, for purposesPurposes of that categorization, not only equivalent to other stimuli in the same category but, also different from stimuli not in that category, On the one hand, it would appear to the organism's advantage to have as many properties as possible predictable from Knowing any one property, a principle that would lead to formation of large numbers of categories with as fine discriminations between categories as possible. On the other hand , one purpose of categorization is to reduce the infinite differences among stimuli to behaviorally and cognitively usable proportions. It is to the organism's advantage not to differentiate one stimulus from others when that differentiation is irrelevant to the purposes at hand.Perceived World Structure.The second principle of categorization asserts that unlike the sets of stimuli used in traditional laboratory concept attainment tasks, the perceived world is not an unstructured total set of equiprobable co-occurring attributes Rather, the material objects of the world are perceive to possess (in Garner's, 1974, sense) high correlational structure. That is, given a knower who perceives the complex attributes of feathers fur and wings, it is an empirical fact provided by the perceived world that wings co-occur with feathers more than with fur. And given an actor with the motor programs for sitting, it is a fact of the perceived world that objects with the perceptual attributes of chairs are more likely to have functional sit-on-able-ness than objects with the appearance of cats. In short, combinations of what we perceive as the attributes of real objects do not occur uniformly. Some pairs, triples, etc., are quite probable, appearing in combination sometimes with one, sometimes another attribute; others are rare; others logically cannot or empirically do not occur.It should be emphasized that we are talking about the perceived world and not a metaphysical world without a knower. What kinds of attributes can be perceived are, of course, species-specific. A dog's sense of smell is more highly differentiated than a human's, and the structure of the world for a dog must surely include attributes of smell that we, as a species, are incapable of perceiving. Furthermore, because a dog's body is constructed differently from ahuman's, its motor interactions with objects are necessarily differently structured. The "out there" of a bat, a frog, or a bee is surely more different still from that of a human. What attributes will be perceived given the ability to perceive them is undoubtedly determined by many factors having to do with the functional needs of the knower interacting with the physical and social environment. One influence on how attributes will be defined by humans is clearly the category system already existent in the culture at a given time. Thus, our segmentation of a bird's body such that there is an attribute called "wings" may be influenced not only by perceptual factors such as the gestalt laws of form that would lead us to consider the wings as a separate part (Palmer, in press) but also by the fact that at present we already have a cultural and linguistic category called "birds." Viewing attributes as, at least in part, constructs of the perceiver does not negate the higher-order structural fact about attributes at issue, namely that the attributes of wings and that of feathers do co-occur in the perceived world.These two basic principles of categorization, a drive toward cognitive economy combined with structure in the perceived world, have implications both for the level of abstraction of categories formed in a culture and for the, internal structure of those categories once formed.For purposes of explication, we may conceive of category systems as having both a verbal and horizontal dimension. The vertical dimension concerns the level of inclusiveness of the category - the dimension along which the terms collie, dog, mammal, animal, and living thing vary. The horizontal dimension concerns the segmentation of categories at the same level of inclusiveness - the dimension on which dog, cat car, bus chair, and sofa vary. The implication of the two principles of categorization for the vertical dimension is that not all possible levels of categorization are equally good or useful; rather, the most basic level of categorization will be the most inclusive (abstract) level at which the categories can mirror the structure of attributes perceived in the world. The implication of the principles of categorization for the horizontal dimension is that to increase the distinctiveness and flexibility of categories, categories tend to become defined in terms of prototypes or prototypical instances that contain the attributes most representative of items inside and least representative of items outside the category.THE VERTICAL DIMENSION OF CATEGORIES: BASIC-LEVEL OBJECTSIn a programmatic series of experiments, we have attempted to argue that categories within taxonomies of concrete objects are structured such that there is generally one level of abstraction at which the most basic category cuts can be made (Rosch et al., 1976a). By category is meant a number objects that are considered equivalent. Categories are generally designated by names (e.g., dog, animal) A taxonomy is a system by which categories arerelated to one another by means of class inclusion, The greater the inclusiveness of a category within a taxonomy, the higher the level of abstraction., Each category within a taxonomy is entirely included within one other category (unless it is the highest level category) but is not exhaustive of that more inclusive category (see Kay, 1971). Thus the term level of abstraction within a taxonomy refers to a particular level of inclusiveness. A familiar taxonomy is the Linnean system for the classification of animals.Our claims concerning a basic level of abstraction can be formalized in terms of cue validity (Rosch et al., 1976a) or in terms of the set theoretic representation of similarity provided by Tversky (1977, and Chapter 4 in this volume). Cue validity is a probabilistic concept; the validity of a given cue x as a predictor of a given category y (the conditional probability of y/x) increases as the frequency with which cue x is associated with category y increases and decreases as the frequency with which cue x is associated with categories other than y increases (Beach, 1964a, 1964b; Reed, 1972). The cue validity of an entire category may be defined as the summation of the cue validities for that category of each of the attributes of the category. A category with high cue validity is, by definition, more differentiated from other categories than one of lower cue validity. The elegant formulization that Tversky provides in Chapter 4 is in terms of the variable "category resemblance," which is defined as the weighted sum of the measures of all of the common features within a category minus the sum of .the measures of all of the distinctive features., Distinctive features include those that belong to only some members of a given category as well as those belonging to contrasting categories. Thus Tversky's formalization does not weight the effect of contrast categories as much as does the cue validity formulation. Tversky suggests that two disjoint classes tend to be combined whenever the weight of the added common features exceeds the weight of the distinctive features.A working assumption of the research on basic objects that (1) in the perceived world, information-rich bundles of perceptual and functional attributes occur that form natural discontinuities, and that (2),basic cuts in categorization are made at these discontinuities. Suppose that basic objects, (e.g., chair, car), are at the most inclusive level at which there are attributes common to all or most members of the category. Then both total cue validities and category resemblance are maximized at that level of abstraction at which basic objects are categorized. This is, categories one level more abstract will be superordinate categories (e.g., furniture, vehicle) whose members share only a few attributes among each other. Categories below the basic level will be bundles of common and, thus, predictable attributes and functions but contain many attributes that overlap with other categories (for example, kitchen chair shares most of its attributes with other kinds of chairs).Superordinate categories have lower total cue validity and lower category resemblance than do basic-level categories, because they have fewer common attributes; in fact, the category resemblance measure of items within the superordinate can even be negative due to the high ratio of distinctive to common features. Subordinate categories have lower total cue validity than do basic categories, because they also share most attributes with contrasting subordinate categories; in Tversky's terms, they tend to be combined because the weight of the added common features tend to exceed the weight of the distinctive features, That basic objects are categories at the level of abstraction that maximizes cue validity and maximizes category resemblance is another way of asserting that basic objects are the categories that best mirror the correlational structure of the environment.We chose to look at concrete objects because they appeared to be a domain that was at once an indisputable aspect of complex natural language classifications yet at the same time were amenable to methods of empirical analysis. In our investigations of basic categories, the correlational structure of concrete objects was considered to consist of a number of inseparable aspects of form andfunction, any one of which could serve as the starting point for analysis. Four investigations provided converging operational definitions of the basic level of abstraction: attributes in common, motor movements in common, objective similarity in shape, and identifiability of averaged shapes.Common Attributes.Ethnobiologists had suggested on the basis of linguistic criteria and field observation that the fobs was the level of classification at which organisms had bundles of attributes in common and maximum discontinuity between classes (see Chapter 1). The purpose of our research was to provide a systematic empirical study of the co-occurrence of attributes in the most common taxonomies of biological and man-made objects in our own culture.The hypothesis that basic level objects are the most inclusive level of classification at which objects have numbers of attributes in common was tested for categories at three levels of abstraction for nine taxonomies: tree, fish, fruit, musical instruments, tool, clothing furniture and vehicle. Examples of the three levels for one biological and one nonbiological taxonomy are shown in Table 2.1. Criteria for choice of these specific items were that the taxonomies contain the most common (defined by word frequency) categories of concrete nouns in English, that the levels of abstraction bear simple class-inclusion relations to each other, and that those class-inclusion relations be generally known to our subjects (be agreed upon by a sample ofnative English speakers) The middle level of abstraction was the hypothesized basic level: For nonbiological taxonomies, this corresponded to the intuition of the experimenters (which also turned out to be consistent with Berlin's linguistic criteria); for biological categories, we assumed that the basic level would be the level of the folk generic.Subjects received sets of words taken from these nine taxonomies; the subject'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 subjects 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 essentially the same attributes listed for visually present objects as for the object names. The angle unpredicted result was that for the three biological taxonomies, 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).TABLE 2.1 Examples of Taxonomies Used in Basic Object ResearchSuperordinate Basic Level SubordinatechairFurniture Chair KitchenchairLiving-roomtableTableKitchentableDining-roomlampFloorLamplampDeskoakTree Oak WhiteoakRedmapleMapleSilvermapleSugarRiverbirchBirchbirchWhiteMotor 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 movements 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 (Brunei, Olver, & Greenfield, I966; Nelson, I974; Piaget, I952).In our study of motor movements, each of the sets of words used in the previous 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 agreed upon listings of the same movements of the same body part in the same part of the movement sequence formed the unit of analysis. Results were identical to those of the attribute listings; basic objects were the most general classes to have motor sequences in common. For example, there are few motor programs we irry out to items of furniture in general and several specific motor programs +cried out in regard to sitting down on chairs, but we sit on kitchen and livingroom chairs using essentially the same motor programs.Similarity in Shapes.Another aspect of the meaning of a class of objects is the appearance of the objects in the class. In order to be able to analyze correlational structures by different but converging methods, it was necessary to find a method of analyzing similarity in the visual aspects of the objects that was not dependent on subjects' descriptions, that was free from effects of the object's name (which would not have been the case for subjects' ratings of similarity), and that went beyond similarity of _analyzable, listable attributes that had already been used in the first study described. For this purpose, outlines of the shape of two-dimensional representations of objects were used, an integral aspect of natural forms. Similarity in shape was measured by the amount of overlap of the two outlines when the outlines (normalized for size and orientation) were juxtaposed.Results showed that the ratio of overlapped to nonoverlapped area when two objects from the same basic-level category (e.g., two cars) were superimposed was far greater than when two objects from the same superordinate categorywere superimposed (e-g., a car and a motorcycle). Although some gain in ratio of overlap to nonoverlap also occurred for subordinate category objects (e.g., two sports cars), the gainobtained by shifting from basic-level to subordinate objects was significantly less than the gain obtained by shifting from superordinate to basic-level objects.Identifiability of Averaged Shapes.If the basic level is the most inclusive level at which shapes of objects of a class are similar, a possible result of such similarity may be that the basic level is also the most inclusive level at which an averaged shape of an object can be recognized. To test this hypothesis, the same normalized superimposed shapes used in the previous experiment were used to draw an average outline of the overlapped figures. Subjects were then asked to identify both the superordinate category and the specific object depicted. Results showed that basic objects were the most general and inclusive categories at which the objects depicted could be identified. Furthermore, overlaps of subordinate objects were no more identifiable than objects at the basic level.In summary, our four converging operational definitions of basic objects all indicated the same level of abstraction to be basic in our taxonomies. Admittedly, the basic level for biological objects was not that predicted by the folk genus; however, this fact appeared to be simply accounted for by our subjects' lack of knowledge of the additional depth of real-world attribute structure available at the level of the folk generic (see Rosch et al., 1976a).Implications for Other FieldsThe foregoing theory of categorization and basic objects has implications for several traditional areas of study in psychology; some of these have been tested.Imagery.The fact that basic-level objects were the most inclusive categories which an averaged member of the category could be identified suggested at basic objects might be the most inclusive categories for which it was possible form a mental image isomorphic to the appearance of members of the class as whole. Experiments using a signal-detection paradigm and a priming paradigm, both of which have been previously argued to be measures of imagery (Peterson Graham, I974; Rosch, 1975c), verified that, in so far as it was meaningful to e the term imagery, basic objects appeared to-be the most abstract categories for which an image could be reasonably representative of the class as a whole.Perception.From all that has been said of the nature of basic classifications, would hardly be reasonable to suppose that in perception of the world, objects were first categorized either at the most abstract or at the most concrete level possible Two separate studies of picture verification (Rosch et al., 1976a; Smith, Balzano, & Walker, I978) indicate that, in fact, objects may be first :en or recognized as members of their basic category, and that only with the ad of additional processing can they be identified as members of their superordinate or subordinate category.Development.We have argued that classification into categories at the basic level is overdetermined because perception, motor movements, functions, and iconic images would all lead to the same level of categorization. Thus basic objects should be the first categorizations of concrete objects made by children. In fact, for our nine taxonomies, the basic level was the first named. And even when naming was controlled, pictures of several basic-level objects were sorted into groups "because they were the same type of thing" long before such a technique of sorting has become general in children.Language.From all that has been said, we would expect the most useful and, thus, most used name for an item to be the basic-level name. In fact, we found that adults almost invariably named pictures of the subordinate items of the nine taxonomies at the basic level, although they knew the correct superordinate and subordinate names for the objects. On a more speculative level, in the evolution of languages, one would expect names to evolve first for basic level objects, spreading both upward and downward as taxonomies increased in depth. Of great relevance for this hypothesis are Berlin's (1972) claims for such a pattern for the evolution of plant names, and our own (Rosch et al., 1976a) and Newport and Bellugi's (Chapter 3, this volume) finding for American Sign Language of the Deaf, that it was the basic-level categories that were most often coded by single signs and super- and subordinate categories that were likely to be missing. Thus a wide range of converging operations verify as basic the same levels of abstraction.THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF CATEGORIES: PROTOTYPESMost, if not all, categories do not have clear-cut boundaries. To argue that basic object categories follow clusters of perceived attributes is not to say that such attribute clusters are necessarily discontinuous.In terms of the principles of categorization proposed earlier, cognitive economy dictates that categories tend to be viewed as being as separate from each other and as clear-cut as possible. One way to achieve this is by means of formal, necessary and sufficient criteria for category membership. The attempt to impose such-criteria on categories marks virtual definitions in the tradition of Western reason. The psychological treatment of categories in the standard concept-identification paradigm lies within this tradition. Another way to achieve separateness and clarity of actually continuous categories is by conceiving of each category in terms of its clear cases rather than its boundaries. As Wittgenstein (1953) has pointed out, categorical judgments become a problem only if one is concerned with boundaries - in the normal course of life, two neighbors know on whose property they are standing without exact demarcation of the boundary line. Categories can be viewed in terms of their clear cases if the perceiver places emphasis on the correlational structure of perceived attributes such that the categories are represented by their most structured portions.By prototypes of categories we have generally meant the clearest cases of pry membership defined operationally by people's judgments of goodness of membership in the category. A great deal of confusion in the discussion of prototypes has arisen from two sources. First, the notion of prototypes has tended to become reified as though it meant a specific category member or mental structure. Questions are then asked in an either-or fashion about whether something is or is not the prototype or part of the prototype in exactly the same way in which the question would previously have been asked about the category boundary. Such thinking precisely violates the Wittgensteinian insight that we can judge how clear a case something is and deal with categories on the basis of clear cases in the total absence of information about boundaries. Second, the empirical findings about prototypicality have been confused with theories of processing - that is, there has been a failure to distinguish the structure of categories from theories concerning the use of that structure in processing. Therefore, let us first attempt to look at prototypes in as purely structural a fashion as possible. We will focus on what may be said about prototypes based on operational definitions and empirical findings alone without the addition of processing assumptions.Perception of typicality differences is, in the first place, an empirical fact of people's judgments about category membership. It is by now a well-documented finding that subjects overwhelmingly agree in their judgments of how good an example or clear a case members are of a category, even for categories about whose boundaries they disagree (Rosch, 1974, 1975b). Such judgments are reliable even under changes of instructions and items (Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973; Rosch, 1975b, 1975c; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Were such agreement and reliability in judgment not to have been obtained, there would be no further point in discussion or。

CategorizationModel

3
2 Method
To test the category model of NARS, and to compare it with the other theories, I designed a psychological experiment of \concept learning from examples". The experiment works like this: subjects are asked to learn a concept on gures. There are three sets of gures: P1 { P6 are positive examples of the concept, N1 { N6 are negative examples of the concept, and X1 { X6 are used to test subjects' criterion in categorization. The experiment consists of the following stages: 1. Only Figure 1 is given to a subject. The subject is told that P1 and P2 are instance of a concept C , but N1 and N2 are not. Then Figure 2 is given to the subject. With Figure 1 still available, the subject is asked to evaluate the membership of X1 { X6 to C in a 0 { 10 scale, where 10 means \Yes", 8 means \almost is", : : : , 5 means \unsure", : : : , 0 means \No". 2. Figure 3 is given to a subject. The subject is told that P3 and P4 are also instance of C , but N3 and N4 are not. With Figure 1, 2, and 3 available, the subject is asked to re-evaluate the membership of X1 { X6 to C in the 0 { 10 scale. 3. Figure 4 is given to a subject. The subject is told that P5 and P6 are instance of C , too, but N5 and N6 are not. With Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4 available, the subject is asked to re-evaluate the membership of X1 { X6 to C in the 0 { 10 scale. After all the subjects are tested, their evaluations on X1 { X6 at the same stage are averaged to get an average membership for each of the 6 testing examples. Totally there are 6 3 = 18 values, and we will refer Xi's average evaluation at stage j as A . The experiment is designed according to the following consideration: At stage 1, all the subject know about concept C is the two positive examples (P1 and P2), and the two negative examples (N1 and N2). These examples are designed in such a way that P1 and P2 are quite similar to each other, and at the same time very di erent from N1 and N2. As a result, it is hard to build dominant intensional relations for C , that is, to nd remarkable properties that shared by P1 and P2, but not by N1 and N2, since there are too many candidates. Under such a situation, the subject's internal representation of C is expected to meet the description of the exemplar theory, that is, the subject's evaluation on X1 { X6 is mainly determined by how similar they are to the given examples. Therefore, I predict that A11 and A21 will have the highest values (since they are more similar to P1 and P2), while A51 and A61 will have the lowest values (since they are more similar to N1 and N2). At stage 2, new examples are introduced, and they are designed to make the \exemplar model" hard to work. P3 and P4 looks di erent from P1 and P2 in many ways, and N3 and N4 are designed to make trouble for the similarity evaluations: X1 and X2 are also similar to N3, though they are still similar to P1 and P2 it is hard to say whether X3 is more similar to P4 or to N4. On the other hand, there is a obvious property shared by all positive examples, but by none negative examples: three upright rectangles. Under such a situation,

category的词根词缀

category的词根词缀Category的词根词缀在英语中，有很多单词都是由词根和词缀组成的。

词根是单词的基本部分，它们通常来自于拉丁语或希腊语。

而词缀则是在词根的基础上添加的一些字母，用来改变单词的意思或者词性。

在这篇文章中，我们将会探讨一些与category相关的词根和词缀。

1. Cate-：这是category的词根，它来自于希腊语中的kategorein，意为“说出来”。

这个词根在很多单词中都有出现，比如categorical（绝对的、明确的）、categorize（分类）、category（类别）等等。

2. -ory：这是一个常见的词缀，用来表示“关于……的”或者“属于……的”。

比如history（历史）、laboratory（实验室）、observatory（天文台）等等。

在category中，这个词缀表示“关于类别的”。

3. -ize：这个词缀用来表示“使……化”或者“使……成为”。

比如organize（组织）、realize（实现）、categorize（分类）等等。

在category中，这个词缀表示“将某物归为某一类别”。

4. Class-：这是另一个与category相关的词根，它来自于拉丁语中的classis，意为“阶级、等级”。

这个词根在很多单词中都有出现，比如classical（古典的）、classification（分类）、classroom（教室）等等。

5. -ification：这个词缀用来表示“使……成为”或者“变成……”。

比如simplification（简化）、clarification（澄清）、classification（分类）等等。

在category中，这个词缀表示“将某物归为某一类别”。

6. Tax-：这是另一个与category相关的词根，它来自于希腊语中的taxis，意为“排列、分类”。

这个词根在很多单词中都有出现，比如taxonomy（分类学）、syntax（语法）、ataxia（共济失调）等等。

根据产品质量CRAMS评分法

根据产品质量CRAMS评分法1. 概述产品质量CRAMS评分法（Categorization, Risk assessment, Mitigation, Score）是一个用于评估产品质量的方法。

该方法基于分类、风险评估、缓解措施和评分的步骤，帮助企业识别和管理产品质量风险，从而提高产品质量。

2. 分类在产品质量CRAMS评分法中，首先需要对产品进行分类。

分类可以根据不同的维度进行，例如产品类型、材料特性、生产过程等。

通过准确地分类产品，可以更好地了解产品的特点和风险，并为后续的评估和缓解措施提供依据。

3. 风险评估风险评估是产品质量CRAMS评分法的核心步骤。

在这一步骤中，需要对产品的各个方面进行综合评估，包括可能存在的质量问题、对用户的潜在影响、市场需求等。

通过全面、准确地评估产品的风险，可以快速识别和解决存在的问题，并有效预防潜在的质量风险。

4. 缓解措施基于风险评估的结果，企业需要采取相应的缓解措施。

缓解措施可以包括改进产品设计、调整生产工艺、加强质量控制等。

通过积极主动地采取缓解措施，企业可以降低质量风险，提高产品的品质和可靠性。

5. 评分最后一步是对产品质量进行评分。

评分可以根据风险评估的结果和采取的缓解措施来确定。

评分可以采用一定的量化方法，例如打分制、等级制等。

通过评分，可以直观地了解产品质量的综合表现，并进行跟踪和改进。

6. 结论产品质量CRAMS评分法是一种实用的方法，可用于评估产品质量并提高产品的品质和可靠性。

通过分类、风险评估、缓解措施和评分的步骤，企业可以全面、系统地管理产品质量风险，提供高质量的产品给用户。

建议企业在实施该评分法时，遵循标准化的流程，并根据实际情况进行灵活调整，以达到最佳的评估效果。

英语记单词方法和技巧

英语记单词方法和技巧1. 分类记忆法（categorization）：将单词按照它们的意义或词性进行分类。

例如，将动物、颜色、水果等单词分别列出，有助于记忆和联想。

2. 关联记忆法（association）：将要记的单词与已经熟悉的单词或图像关联起来。

可以通过构建有趣的故事、画面或形象来帮助记忆。

例如，将"apple"（苹果）与"ape"（猿猴）关联在一起，想象一个猿猴在吃苹果。

3. 词根词缀法（root and affixes）：学习和记忆单词的词根、前缀和后缀。

这些词形成的单词通常有共同的意义。

例如，"tele-"表示远程，"phone"表示电话，将它们组合起来就是"telephone"（电话）。

4. 制定记忆规划（memory plan）：制定一个学习计划，有目标地记忆单词。

可以根据自己的学习时间和记忆能力，每天记忆一定数量的单词，并进行复习。

5. 使用记忆工具（memory tools）：利用记忆工具如闪卡、单词卡片或应用程序来帮助记忆。

可以写下单词和定义，然后通过不断重复和回顾来巩固记忆。

6. 反复使用和应用（repetition and application）：在日常生活中经常使用和运用所学的单词。

可以与他人交流时使用，写作文时插入单词，或者尝试阅读、听力等活动来巩固记忆。

7. 创造联想（create associations）：将要学习的单词与已有的知识和经验联系起来，创造有趣和有意义的联想。

例如，将"vacation"（假期）与海滩、阳光和放松联系在一起。

8. 制作单词表（create word lists）：将要学习的单词写在一个表格或清单中，然后反复查看和练习。

可以按照时间顺序、字母顺序或者重要程度进行排列。

9. 听写练习（dictation exercises）：让别人或者自己读出单词，然后试着听写出来。

categorization语言学定义

categorization语言学定义【categorization 语言学定义】“嘿，朋友们！在我们的日常交流和学习中，经常会遇到各种各样的分类问题，比如整理书架时把书按类型摆放，或者区分不同风格的衣服。

今天呀，咱们就来聊聊 categorization 这个在语言学中有点特别的概念。

”其实，categorization 简单来说就是把事物按照一定的标准或特点分成不同的类别。

就像我们把水果分为苹果、香蕉、橙子等，这就是一种 categorization 。

比如在超市里，货物被分类摆放，方便我们快速找到想要的东西。

但是要注意哦，有些人会误以为 categorization 只是简单的分组，其实它更强调依据明确的规则和特征来划分。

比如，不能因为苹果和香蕉都是黄色的，就把它们归为一类，而应该根据它们本质的特征，像形状、味道等来分类。

接下来咱们看看它的关键点。

核心特征或要素：1. 明确的分类标准：这是 categorization 的基础。

比如把动物按照食性分为食草动物、食肉动物和杂食动物，食性就是明确的分类标准。

2. 系统性：分类要有条理和逻辑。

像把书籍按照文学、历史、科学等大类，然后再细分，这就是系统性的体现。

3. 可变性：分类不是一成不变的。

随着新事物的出现或者我们对事物认识的深入，分类可能会改变。

比如说以前对于音乐的分类比较简单，现在随着音乐风格的多样化，分类也更加细致和丰富了。

容易混淆的概念：Categorization 和 classification 这两个词很相似，但也有区别。

Categorization 更侧重于基于事物内在的本质特征进行分类，比较细致和深入。

而 classification 则更侧重于从宏观的角度进行大致的分类，相对来说没有那么细致。

比如说在生物学中，对物种的 categorization 会非常详细，考虑到基因、生态等多个方面；而 classification 可能只是简单地分为动物、植物、微生物等大类别。

catagory翻译

catagory翻译
"category" 的详细翻译是 "分类"。

它是一个名词，用于指代将事物或对象按照共同的特征、属性或性质进行划分和分组的过程，以便更好地理解和组织它们。

"category" 这个词可以在不同的领域和语境中使用：
商品分类：在商业和零售领域，商品通常被划分为不同的类别，例如电子产品、家具、服装、食品等。

学术研究分类：在学术界，研究和论文通常会被归类到不同的学科、主题或领域。

语言学分类：在语言学中，单词通常会被归类到不同的词类，如名词、动词、形容词等。

文学作品分类：在文学领域，文学作品可以被划分为不同的类型，如小说、诗歌、散文等。

"category" 也可以用作形容词 "categorical"，表示 "绝对的" 或 "无条件的"。

例如：a categorical statement（绝对的陈述）。

"category" 是一个广泛使用的词汇，用于描述各种不同事物的分类和归类过程。

统计学中categorical

统计学中categorical
Categorical是指统计学中的离散型变量，即变量只有有限个取值，而且这些取值之间没有量上的大小关系。

举例来说，性别、颜色、品牌等都是categorical变量。

在统计学中，我们经常需要对categorical变量进行分析。

其中最基本的分析方法是频数分析，即统计每一类取值的出现次数。

比如说我们可以统计某个品牌的销量在各个地区的分布情况，然后求出每个地区销量的占比。

除了频数分析，统计学中还有很多其他的方法可以对categorical变量进行分析。

比如说，我们可以使用卡方检验来检验两个categorical变量之间是否存在相关性；还可以使用独立性检验来检验一个categorical变量和一个连续型变量之间是否存在相关性。

总之，categorical变量在统计学中是非常常见的。

了解如何对它们进行分析是统计学学习的基础之一。

- 1 -。