Example: images of two vehicles Table 5. Superordinate Image Category Rosch’s A subordinate image category as shown in Table 6 contains images which are subsets of the basic category. These individual images tend to share many overlapping, predictable attributes with other member images in this distinct category. Subordinate category: subset of the basic category predictable attributes overlap Example: images of two 1969 Chevrolet Camaro RSs Table 6. subordinate image category examples Rosch’s Rosch (1978) summarizes the three levels of categorical abstraction: few “Very attributes are usually listed for superordinate categories greater (‘furniture’). Significantly numbers of attributes are assigned to basic level objects Subordinate level (‘chairs’). objects ( George II 1740 Windsor do not have ‘black yew splat-back armchair’) significantly more attributes assigned than do basic-level objects.” In a study conducted by Rorissa and Iyer (2008), user assignment of image category labels was found to generally be generic, interpretive and to belong to the superordinate to the basic level. In this project, patterns emerged in the pin names collected showing few image names had characteristics of the generic superordinate category (‘furniture’). Significantly greater numbers of primary pin names are assigned to basic level objects
Example: images of two vehicles Table 5. Rosch’s Superordinate Image Category A subordinate image category as shown in Table 6 contains images which are subsets of the basic category. These individual images tend to share many overlapping, predictable attributes with other member images in this distinct category. Subordinate category: subset of the basic category predictable attributes overlap Example: images of two 1969 Chevrolet Camaro RSs Table 6. Rosch’s subordinate image category examples Rosch (1978) summarizes the three levels of categorical abstraction: “Very few attributes are usually listed for superordinate categories (‘furniture’). Significantly greater numbers of attributes are assigned to basic level objects (‘chairs’). Subordinate level objects ( ‘black yew splat-back George II 1740 Windsor armchair’) do not have significantly more attributes assigned than do basic-level objects.” In a study conducted by Rorissa and Iyer (2008), user assignment of image category labels was found to generally be generic, interpretive and to belong to the superordinate to the basic level. In this project, patterns emerged in the pin names collected showing few image names had characteristics of the generic superordinate category (‘furniture’). Significantly greater numbers of primary pin names are assigned to basic level objects
Sutcliffe_Exploring_Naming_Behavior_Oct_24_2014_.docx