Rosch, E., 1978, Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, edited by E.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....images, can often be manipulated to become as close as desired to representations belonging to several other categories, such as compositional diagrams. This continuity of representation is a well known characteristic of many ordinary concepts and has been empirically explored in prototype theory [28]. The point is that classical definitions using jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for specifying when an instance belongs to some category, do not work well in the analogue domain. Instead, concept definitions have to rely on a combination of reference to prototypical instances (or ....

E. Rosch, Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1978.

....communicated in instructional texts (see for example [10, 3] and only account for procedural type information. They are based on our interpretation of our corpus. The heuristics to introduce certain semantic carriers rely heavily on the notion of basic level operations intro duced by Rosch [11] and Pollack [10] Basic level opera tions are those operations that people seem to remember and are able to represent mentally most easily. In the texts, they turn out to be detailed enough to be descriptive, but general enough to be useful. In her work, 11] found considerable agreement among ....

....operations intro duced by Rosch [11] and Pollack [10] Basic level opera tions are those operations that people seem to remember and are able to represent mentally most easily. In the texts, they turn out to be detailed enough to be descriptive, but general enough to be useful. In her work, [11] found considerable agreement among people on the kinds of units of events that are remembered. For example, when asked to recall events that occurred in the morning, subjects remembered operations like brushing their teeth, taking a shower, but no one mentioned smaller units like squeezing the ....

E. Rosch. Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27-48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N J, 1978.

....dependent perspective: the various aspects of the message to be expressed by the generator can have different degrees of salience, which may give rise to certain thematizations and also influence lexical choice. Reiter [1990] demonstrated the importance of basic level categories (as used by Rosch [1978]) for generation, overriding the popular heuristic of always choosing the most specific word available. Generally speaking, the point of interesting language generation (that is, more than merely mapping semantic elements one to one onto words) is to tailor the output to the situation at hand, ....

....their role in defining similar words, which are, of course, semantically more spe cific. It seems that the notion of core words corre sponds with basic level categories, which have been employed in NLG by Reiter [1990] but which had originated not in linguistics but in cognitive psychol ogy [Rosch, 1978]. 4 Towards a Model for Lexicalization When the input to the generator is some sort of a semantic net (and possibly additional pragmatic parameters) lexical items are sought that express all the parts of that net and that can be combined into a grammatical sentence. The hard constraint on which ....

Eleanor Rosch. Principles of Catego- rization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

....an engineering one, we will keep it aside. On the other hand we will concentrate in mid level descriptions, as it is still currently an active area of basic and applied research. Regarding the mid level descriptions of sound, the most obvious description is at what we could call alongside Rosch [20] the basic level of categorization the description into notes (in case of speech it could be the description into words) At a lower level we need to decompose notes into envelope stages as attack steady state release, and at a higher one we need to group notes into phrases and melodies. Melody ....

Rosch, E.: Principles of Categorization. In: E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (1978)

.... Grosz et al. 1983 ] definite noun phrases were generated with the algorithm described in [ Reiter and Dale, 1992 ] Choosing appropriate open class lexical items (words) This was based on the ideas presented in [ Reiter, 1991 ] and involved, for example, trying to use basiclevel terms [ Rosch, 1978 ] whenever possible. Surface Realization: The SPL term is converted into a surface form, i.e. a set of words with formatting and hypertext annotations. This process involves: Syntactic processing. The idas grammar is represented as a series of I1 classes, and classification is used to apply ....

Eleanor Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

....1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixy) 4. Be orderly. Figure 1: The Gricean Maxims (excerpted from [Gri75, page 65] An additional source of conversational implicatures is the failure to use words that correspond to basic level classes (Rosch, 1978; Cruse, 1977) Consider the referring expressions used in (7a) and (7b) 7) a. Look at the dog. b. Look at the pit bull. In a context where there is only one dog present, the hearer would normally expect utterance (7a) to be used, since dog is a basic level class for most native speakers of ....

....returns the basic level value of an attribute of an object, from the point of view of the current user. For example, BasicLevelValue(Garfield, type) might be cat. The knowledge representation system should in principle allow di#erent basic level classes to be specified for di#erent users (Rosch, 1978; Reiter, 1991) UserKnows(object, attribute value pair) returns true if the user knows or can easily determine (for example, by direct visual perception) that the attribute value pair applies to the object; false if the user knows or can easily determine that the attribute value pair does not ....

Rosch, E (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

....flying as a necessary property. Modern linguistics and psychology generally assume that prototype effects make some exemplars better examples for a class than others. A robin is a better example for a bird than a penguin or an ostrich the latter two kinds of birds both cannot fly (Rosch 1973, Rosch 1978). Linguistic analysis suggests that the ways objects are structured are closely related to operations one can perform with them, and empirical data support this (Jackendoff 1983, Fellbaum 1998) Consistency constraints for objects which are considered radial categories must allow gradual ....

Rosch, E., 1978, Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, edited by E. Rosch and B. B.

....we can choose those entities which are best representations of that concept. The fundamental idea behind these approaches is that all the entities which are the most typical representatives of a concept are called prototypes . a concept popularized in cognitive psychology especially by Rosch (1978) and Osherson Smith (1981) A characterizing sentence is seen as a universal quantification over the prototypical elements of a concept. For example, a sentence such as A cat has a tail can be paraphrased as Every prototypical 16 Barth says, Jesperson s use of person here is quite general ....

Rosch, E. (1978) "Principles of Categorization", in E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyds (ed.), Cognition and Categorization, New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., pp. 27-48.

....of attributes it does not follow that my leg in an accident, is no longer a dog. Modern linguistics and psychology assume generally that prototype effects make some exemplars better examples for a class than others. A robin is a better example for a bird than a penguin or an ostrich (Rosch 1973; Rosch 1978). Rationality and Irrationality 23 rd International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg, August 2000 4 Linguistic analysis suggests that the ways objects are structured are closely related to operations one can perform with them, and empirical data support this (Jackendoff 1983; Fellbaum ....

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. Cognition and Categorization. E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.

....) P(enroll(x) If OE specifies an exception to this rule, we could add the axiom 8s : Student(OE(x) EC : student : enroll(x) F(enroll(x) 6. 4 Methodological consequences Psychological research has shown that taxonomies are learnt neither topdown nor bottom up, but from the middle out [21]. When a novice starts learning the structure of the UoD, he or she will usually start at the basic level, which is the level at which objects have the largest number of discriminating characteristic with respect to their neighbors in the taxonomy, or the level of the types of objects that are ....

E. Rosch. Principles of Categorization. in Cognition and Categorization, E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978, pp. 27-48.

....of more specific terms on the semantic map, and would be equally easy to access and equally likely to be impaired in local damage. Lack of physical hierarchy makes it also difficult to account for certain psychological data on normal processing of category hierarchies. Rosch et al. 1976) and Rosch (1978) demonstrated that names for basic level categories (such as table or dog) are easier to process than for superordinate and subordinate categories (e.g. furniture, spaniel) For the current model, the level of the category would not make any difference. However, if the semantic memory was ....

Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E., and Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, 27--48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

....among an entity s properties (Malt Smith, 1984) That is, people seem to encode that has fur and has whiskers are correlated because entities that have fur, such as tigers, dogs, and lions, also tend to have whiskers. A number of researchers (e.g. Boyd, 1984; Malt Smith, 1984; Medin, 1989; Rosch, 1978; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Boyes Braem, 1976) have claimed that an important step toward gaining a better understanding of conceptual memory is to determine how property intercorrelations affect the representation of concepts in memory. Knowledge of the correlational structure of semantic space has ....

....the experiments reported in this article tapped a probabilistic component of people s conceptual knowledge. Defining Correlations Among Properties There are three main ways that correlations among properties have been conceptualized. First, there are within category instance level correlations (Rosch, 1978). For example, a person s concept of DOG might consist of a set of properties (e.g. has paws, has four legs, wags tail, barks) because they tend to be strongly intercorrelated across the individual beagles and german shepherds that have been encountered. Storing this type of correlation may be ....

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.). Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

....Modules, integration and primal access. Technical Report no. 90.06, Computing Science Center, University of Geneva. Rendell, L. 1990) Commentary to Lebowitz, M. The Utility of Similarity Based Learning in a World Needing Explanation. In Michalski, R.S. and Kodratoff, Y. eds. op. cit. Rosch, E. 1978) Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. eds. Cognition and Categorization, 2839, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shepherd, B.A. 1983) An appraisal of a decision tree approach to image classification. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 473 475. Wyszecki, G. and Stiles, W. ....

....Report no. 90.06, Computing Science Center, University of Geneva. Rendell, L. 1990) Commentary to Lebowitz, M. The Utility of Similarity Based Learning in a World Needing Explanation. In Michalski, R.S. and Kodratoff, Y. eds. op. cit. Rosch, E. 1978) Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. eds. Cognition and Categorization, 2839, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shepherd, B.A. 1983) An appraisal of a decision tree approach to image classification. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 473 475. Wyszecki, G. and Stiles, W. 1982) Color Science: Concepts and Methods, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, 2839, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

....this view, a good representation is one that makes explicit the intrinsic shape of an object in great detail and with high fidelity. A reflection on the nature of everyday recognition tasks prompts one to question the validity of this view of representation. In a normal categorization situation (Rosch, 1978; Smith, 1990) human observers are expected to ignore much of the shape details (Price and Humphreys, 1989) Barring special (albeit behaviorally 1 Figure 1: The process of image formation. A family of shapes (say, 4 legged animal like objects) can be defined parametrically, using a small number ....

.... 2 It has been hypothesized (Edelman et al. 1996) that the ensemble of responses produced by a collection of object specific modules can serve as a substrate for carrying out classification of the stimulus at superordinate, basic, or subordinate levels of categorization (Rosch et al. 1976; Rosch, 1978), depending on the manner in which the response vector is processed. In the next section we describe a series of computational experiments that examine the representational capabilities of a multiclassifier network in a range of tasks. 4 Experimental results In all our computational experiments ....

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B., editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

....the system has of that entity. In the Terry example, the goal is to inform the hearer that Terry has the attributes fHuman, Age status:adult, Sex:Maleg. In the KL ONE [Brachman, Schmolze 1985] style knowledge representation used by Reiter, concepts can be marked as basic level in the sense of [Rosch 1978]. Thus, on the taxonomic path Tweety (instance of) Robin Bird Vertebrate Animal Object, the concept Bird is a basic level one, which leads to a preference for using the corresponding lexical item when referring to some kind of bird (i.e. some concept or instance subsumed by it) ....

E. Rosch. "Principles of categorization." In: E. Rosch, B. Lloyd (eds.): Cognition and categorization. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978.

....are denoted as aggregation and characterization. While aggregation only leads to a decision to determine which entities have to be summarized for a concept, the process of characterization yields an intensional description of the concept. A well known point of view is based on works of [21] and [20]. According to those works, the entities features of common concepts are not randomly distributed but rather arranged within groups. For an appropriate concept formation those groups must be considered by providing the following. Feature correlations of different entities of a single concept must ....

....appropriate entities for a given concept but even the concept itself, depending on the entities. Most methods from this Concept Formation by Combining Neural Networks and Machine Learning 245 domain have based their process of aggregation on the thesis of correlated features, described by [21] and [20]. The observations aggregated by conceptual clustering methods into concepts are composed by a number of features that also yield the basic vocabulary of concept description. The features themselves are stringently expected as being already stated by the user. Normally additional background ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Rosch. Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

....true) trees = transitiveVP(S,R,E,O) Figure 5.1: Lexical item entry for the verb turn turn, is shown in Figure 5.1. The fields in a lexical item entry are as follows: ffl name gives the lexical item. ffl basic indicates whether the lexical item is considered a basic word, in the sense of [Rosch, 1978]. ffl decl indicates the type of trees 1 that the lexical item anchors and a list of semantic indices (i.e. arguments) used in the trees. ffl site indicates the type of node which the lexical item can expand, needed for determining which lexical items are applicable to a given partial tree. ....

....to exist in the mind of the hearer. Communicative goals, such as identifying an object, are analyzed by a separate component and given to the lexical choice algorithm as attributes to express. Lexical preference is based on a bias towards basic level and other preferred lexical units following [Rosch, 1978]. One of the basic questions that can be asked of the system is how to perform a specific action; other questions involve describing objects and relationships between objects in the domain. Other than considering user expertise in content determination and lexical choice, the issue of the ....

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

....[Smith 1988] First, it provides cognitive economy. By identifying a group of entities as similar in some way(s) through classification, some knowledge can be stored with the class, rather than repeated for all instances. Moreover, there are meaningful differences between distinct classes [Rosch 1978]. Second, classification enables 14 inference. It is often possible to classify an instance based on a strict subset of its properties, and to infer the presence of other, unobserved properties by virtue of that classification. In both functions, classes serve a utilitarian role. These basic ....

Rosch, E., "Principles of Categorization," in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978, 27-48.

....1. head determination 2. modifier generation 3. determiner generation 2.2.1. Head determination Head determination is generally performed using a discrimination net associating lexical entries (nouns) to different levels of the is a hierarchy of the underlying knowledge base. Following [39], Reiter used the notion of basic level to define a lexical preference relation and guide head determination [35] by using predefined nodes in the discrimination net as preferred head nouns. Reiter also used a user model specifying which nodes are known to the user. If a preferred node is ....

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

....that there is a di#culty e#ect intrinsic to our level of categorization manipulation: we selected our stimuli so that each picture would be matched faster to its basic level name than its subordinate level name #Gauthier et al. 1997#. The basic level advantage is crucial to categorization work #Rosch, 1978; Rosch et al. 1976; Tanaka Taylor, 1991# and it would be meaningless to attempt to equate level of di#cultybetween basic and subordinate level judgments. Consider that objects can often be categorized at the basic level merely by the presence of single features or con#gurations of features ....

Rosch, E. #1978#. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd #Eds.#, Cognition and categorization #p. 27-48#. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

....KNOME s user models, no attempt was made to psychologically profile what different users know. Instead, former UNIX consultants (UC s implementors) were informally surveyed to determine how they viewed users. 2.1. Double Stereotypes Humans use categorization to organize inferences (see [ROSC77, ROSC78, ROSC83]) These categories serve as reference points or prototypes for judging objects. Once an object has been identified as belonging to a particular category, default inferences about the object can be made based on the object s membership in the category. An approach similar to human categorization ....

....no attempt has been made yet to apply the methodology to other areas, it would seem that many of the techniques should transfer well. Stereotype categories are used in UC in similar fashion to the way humans use categories, that is as reference points for reasoning about individual members (see [ROSC77, ROSC78, ROSC83]) Thus stereotypes should be useful for approximate reasoning wherever human categorization has proven to be useful. The doublestereotype system extends the use of computer stereotype categories to cover more of human categorization, that is to include categories for knowledge as well as ....

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization, in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

....in part on taxonomic organizations. The most obvious of these are zoological: Spot is a Dalmatian, which is a kind of dog, which is a kind of animal. When we recognize an object in the world, we recognize it first at an intermediate level of abstraction, which Rosch has dubbed the basic level (Rosch, 1978; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, Boyes Braem, 1976) After initial recognition, the identification process proceeds either up or down the taxonomic hierarchy, to more or less abstract levels respectively. In the example, we see that Spot is a dog before we identify his breed or particular ....

Rosch, E. (1978) Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

.... This explains the results of studies where it is found that when asked to list examples of a category, subjects consistently list members that are closer to the prototype both earlier and more often (e.g. for the category Bird, the examples Sparrow and Robin are produced more often than Ostrich) [22]. Further when asked to classify instances, it is found that examples closer to the prototype are classified more quickly. Similar results were found in studies with artificially generated categories [21] For a prototype P , we could define a family of nested concepts within the category of P ....

E. Rosch, "Principles of Categorization" in Cognition and Categorization (Ed.s E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd), Hillsdale, 1978.

....are more frequent in use, morphologically simpler, and earlier to enter a language. For taxonomies developed by people living close to nature, this is the level of oak and trout rather than the level of tree or fish, or of types of scarlet oaks or rainbow trout. Rosch and her collaborators (see Rosch 1978 for a review) undertook to study the structures of taxonomies of common categories in North American culture taxonomies of fruits, tools, plants, clothing, furniture, and the like concentrating especially on categories of objects (with closed object boundaries) at surveyable scales. Both ....

Rosch, E., 1978 "Principles of categorization", in: E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

....which comparisons are made and which are combined in di#erentways depending on the particular context #Newton, 1992; Smith and Medin, 1981; Rosenman and Sudweeks, 1995#. Observed human behaviour displays a clear grading of membership which does not equate with the classical theory of categories. Rosch #1978#, for example, claims that not all of the de#ning features of a category are necessary and that the more typical the example, the better the membership of the category. The most typical members are referred to as prototypes. One wayof representing a prototype is through an actual instance of a ....

Rosch, E.: 1978, Principles of categorization, in E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd #eds#, Cognition and Categorization,Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 27#48.

....1994) It is only when prior knowledge is compatible with the new knowledge to be acquired that we anticipate a positive effect. Classical concepts that consistent of sets of necessary and sufficient features have several flaws. Few concepts people encounter have such rigorous logical definitions (Rosch, 1978). More recently, it has become apparent that concepts do not exist and are not learned in isolation. Here, we have presented quantitative results on how induced background knowledge influence the rate of learning and the number of errors made during learning. While we have found that having ....

Rosch E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization (Ed.), Rosch E. & Lloyd B.. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

.... et al. 1983 ] definite noun phrases were generated with the algorithm described in [ Reiter and Dale, 1992 ] ffl Choosing appropriate open class lexical items (words) This was based on the ideas presented in [ Reiter, 1991 ] and involved, for example, trying to use basiclevel terms [ Rosch, 1978 ] whenever possible. Surface Realization: The SPL term is converted into a surface form, i.e. a set of words with formatting and hypertext annotations. This process involves: ffl Syntactic processing. The idas grammar is represented as a series of I1 classes, and classification is used to apply ....

Eleanor Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978. 37

No context found.

Rosch, E., 1978, Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, edited by E.

No context found.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: Rosche, E. and Lloyd, B., (Eds), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 27-48.

No context found.

Rosch Eleanor, 1978, "Principles of categorization", Pp. 27-48 in E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd, eds., Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

No context found.

Rosch, E., (1978): Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E.; Lloyd, B.B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27-48.

No context found.

Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization. L. Erlbaum Associates, 1978.

No context found.

Rosch, E. Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1978) 27--48

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization. L. Erlbaum Associates, 1978.

No context found.

Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. Principles of categorization. in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. eds. Cognition and categorization, L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.; New York, 1978, 27-48.

No context found.

E. H. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. H. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 27--48. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 28--49. Erlbaum, 1978.

No context found.

Rosch, E., Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Loyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, (pp.27-48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

No context found.

E. Rosch (1978). Principles of categorization, in Cognition and categorization E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd, editors. (Hillsdale, N. J. : Laurence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 27--48.

No context found.

Rosch, E. (1978) Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization (Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B., eds), pp. 28--48, LawrenceArlbaumAssociates

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, chapter 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

No context found.

Rosch, E. 1978. "Principles of Categorization", in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

No context found.

Rosch, E. 1978. \Principles of Categorization", in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

No context found.

Rosch E. (1978) "Principle of categorization" . E. Rosch , B. Lloyd edits. Cognition and Categoriztion , pp 27-48 . Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

No context found.

Rosch, E. (1978), Principles of Categorization, Cognition and Categorization, E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, 27-48.

No context found.

E. Rosch. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.

No context found.

Rosch, E. (1978), Principles of Categorization, Cognition and Categorization, E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, 27-48.

No context found.

E. Rosch, (1978). Principles of categorization. In: E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, (eds.) Concepts and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC