|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
The purpose of this paper is to prove the inappropriateness of the classical model for the notion of categorization. A careful study of the phenomenon of ‘hedges’ contrasted with the classical model of categorization results in obtaining valid information on the nature of categories within the language. Namely, the practical employment of particular ‘hedges’ will provide the data for the refutation of the Aristotelian approach to categorization.
The core of the classical model of categorization is that all categories are defined in terms of their essences - in other words, the conjunctions of necessary and sufficient features. ... In fact, the application of the classical approach to a particular entity invokes foreseeable and easily noticeable consequences. ... All the above principles and their consequences are obligatory for every entity and category in the classical approach to categorization (see Taylor, 1995, ch. ...
As far as the phenomenon of ‘hedges’ is concerned, they explicate the methods comprising a model of mental categorization process. In fact, the linguistic evidence from ‘hedges’ parallels the psychological experiments concerning human categorization of items.
Taylor argues that ‘Semantically, we can characterize hedges as linguistic expressions which speakers have at their disposal to comment on the language they are using’ (Taylor, 1995: 76). Thus, ‘hedges’ serve as a language tool enabling the speakers to differentiate and express the degrees of category membership. The list of ‘hedges’ comprises a great variety of expressions, however, only components such as par excellence, loosely speaking and strictly speaking will be considered in the discussion below.
Approximate Word count = 1201
Approximate Pages = 4.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|