. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in linguistic categorizationThe importance of category generalizations

Siva Kalyan

Australian National University

September –,

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. .

.slot

.construction.

.

..

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. ..slot

.construction.

.

..

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. ..slot

.construction.

...

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. ..slot

.construction.

...

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. ..slot

.construction.

...

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Exemplar models

.. ..slot

.construction.

...

..

....

..

..

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Spanish verbs of “becoming”(Bybee and Eddington )

edarse…

..sorprendido.‘surprised’

.frío.‘cold’ .pasmado

.‘stunned’

.estupefacto.‘astonished’

.atónito.‘astounded’

.lívido

.‘pale’

.perplejo.‘perplexed’

.

.orgullosísimo

.‘extremely proud’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorization

I Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter moresimilar to a quarter or to a pizza?

I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?

I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )

I Similar in what respect(s)?I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity are

notoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Problems with similarity

I Dissociations between similarity and categorizationI Rips (): Is a circular object three ines in diameter more

similar to a quarter or to a pizza?I Whi is it more likely to be?

I Similarity is flexible (Tversky ; Medin et al. )I Similar in what respect(s)?

I Goldberg (: –): “…judgments of similarity arenotoriously variable across speakers and contexts, and twoactivities can almost always be said to be similar in some respect.”

I Murphy and Medin (: ): “…there is no unique answer tothe question of how similar is one object to another.”

I We need constraints.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

Bagrounded constituents may not serve as gaps in filler-gapconstructions. (Bagrounded Constituents are Islands)

She didn’t mumble that he saw the roses.She didn’t realize that he saw the roses.

She didn’t say that he saw the roses.She didn’t think that he saw the roses.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

Bagrounded constituents may not serve as gaps in filler-gapconstructions. (Bagrounded Constituents are Islands)

She didn’t mumble that he saw the roses.She didn’t realize that he saw the roses.

She didn’t say that he saw the roses.She didn’t think that he saw the roses.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

[WH do you think S-GAP?][WH did you say S-GAP?]

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

LDD questions(Ambridge and Goldberg ; Dąbrowska )

⁇Who did she say that he saw _?⁇Who did she think that he saw _?

⁇Who did she mumble that he saw _?⁇Who did she realize that he saw _?

[WH do you think S-GAP?][WH did you say S-GAP?]

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

BCI versus similarity

I Foregrounding of the complement correlates with acceptabilityI Similarity to think and say (as main verbs in yes/no questions)

does notI Similarity with respect to foregrounding of the complement?I We need constraints on similarity.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

BCI versus similarity

I Foregrounding of the complement correlates with acceptability

I Similarity to think and say (as main verbs in yes/no questions)does not

I Similarity with respect to foregrounding of the complement?I We need constraints on similarity.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

BCI versus similarity

I Foregrounding of the complement correlates with acceptabilityI Similarity to think and say (as main verbs in yes/no questions)

does not

I Similarity with respect to foregrounding of the complement?I We need constraints on similarity.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

BCI versus similarity

I Foregrounding of the complement correlates with acceptabilityI Similarity to think and say (as main verbs in yes/no questions)

does notI Similarity with respect to foregrounding of the complement?

I We need constraints on similarity.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

BCI versus similarity

I Foregrounding of the complement correlates with acceptabilityI Similarity to think and say (as main verbs in yes/no questions)

does notI Similarity with respect to foregrounding of the complement?I We need constraints on similarity.

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Properties of similarity

I Function of shared and non-shared aributes (Tversky )I Salience of a shared property contributes to similarity; salience of

a non-shared property detracts from itI Bla and white are judged to be more similar when presented

together with red than when presented without any extra context(Medin et al. )

I Learning to sort faces into two categories increases similarity offaces in the same category, and decreases similarity of faces indifferent categories (Goldstone et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Properties of similarity

I Function of shared and non-shared aributes (Tversky )

I Salience of a shared property contributes to similarity; salience ofa non-shared property detracts from it

I Bla and white are judged to be more similar when presentedtogether with red than when presented without any extra context(Medin et al. )

I Learning to sort faces into two categories increases similarity offaces in the same category, and decreases similarity of faces indifferent categories (Goldstone et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Properties of similarity

I Function of shared and non-shared aributes (Tversky )I Salience of a shared property contributes to similarity; salience of

a non-shared property detracts from it

I Bla and white are judged to be more similar when presentedtogether with red than when presented without any extra context(Medin et al. )

I Learning to sort faces into two categories increases similarity offaces in the same category, and decreases similarity of faces indifferent categories (Goldstone et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Properties of similarity

I Function of shared and non-shared aributes (Tversky )I Salience of a shared property contributes to similarity; salience of

a non-shared property detracts from itI Bla and white are judged to be more similar when presented

together with red than when presented without any extra context(Medin et al. )

I Learning to sort faces into two categories increases similarity offaces in the same category, and decreases similarity of faces indifferent categories (Goldstone et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Properties of similarity

I Function of shared and non-shared aributes (Tversky )I Salience of a shared property contributes to similarity; salience of

a non-shared property detracts from itI Bla and white are judged to be more similar when presented

together with red than when presented without any extra context(Medin et al. )

I Learning to sort faces into two categories increases similarity offaces in the same category, and decreases similarity of faces indifferent categories (Goldstone et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in categorization

I Necessary features of a category have increased salienceI Doberman pinsers are judged more similar to raccoons than to

sharks, yet more likely to belong to {boar, lion, shark} than to{boar, lion, raccoon} (unpublished study, Medin et al. )

I If a category is defined by a conjunction of three features, an itempossessing those three features is classified more accurately than ifonly two of the features define the category—even if the item stillshares three features with ea exemplar (Elio and Anderson )

I An item possessing the necessary feature of one category and aaracteristic feature of another is classified into the formercategory (ibaut et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in categorization

I Necessary features of a category have increased salience

I Doberman pinsers are judged more similar to raccoons than tosharks, yet more likely to belong to {boar, lion, shark} than to{boar, lion, raccoon} (unpublished study, Medin et al. )

I If a category is defined by a conjunction of three features, an itempossessing those three features is classified more accurately than ifonly two of the features define the category—even if the item stillshares three features with ea exemplar (Elio and Anderson )

I An item possessing the necessary feature of one category and aaracteristic feature of another is classified into the formercategory (ibaut et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in categorization

I Necessary features of a category have increased salienceI Doberman pinsers are judged more similar to raccoons than to

sharks, yet more likely to belong to {boar, lion, shark} than to{boar, lion, raccoon} (unpublished study, Medin et al. )

I If a category is defined by a conjunction of three features, an itempossessing those three features is classified more accurately than ifonly two of the features define the category—even if the item stillshares three features with ea exemplar (Elio and Anderson )

I An item possessing the necessary feature of one category and aaracteristic feature of another is classified into the formercategory (ibaut et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in categorization

I Necessary features of a category have increased salienceI Doberman pinsers are judged more similar to raccoons than to

sharks, yet more likely to belong to {boar, lion, shark} than to{boar, lion, raccoon} (unpublished study, Medin et al. )

I If a category is defined by a conjunction of three features, an itempossessing those three features is classified more accurately than ifonly two of the features define the category—even if the item stillshares three features with ea exemplar (Elio and Anderson )

I An item possessing the necessary feature of one category and aaracteristic feature of another is classified into the formercategory (ibaut et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity in categorization

I Necessary features of a category have increased salienceI Doberman pinsers are judged more similar to raccoons than to

sharks, yet more likely to belong to {boar, lion, shark} than to{boar, lion, raccoon} (unpublished study, Medin et al. )

I If a category is defined by a conjunction of three features, an itempossessing those three features is classified more accurately than ifonly two of the features define the category—even if the item stillshares three features with ea exemplar (Elio and Anderson )

I An item possessing the necessary feature of one category and aaracteristic feature of another is classified into the formercategory (ibaut et al. )

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Similarity and questions

I Foregrounding the complement clause is a property sharedamong all questions

I e beer the matrix verb satisfies this property, the moreacceptable the question

I To the extent “plain” similarity to think and say does not dependon degree of foregrounding of the complement, these similaritiesare not relevant

I Problem: Having a second-person subject is an equallyubiquitous property of questions, yet anging this does notaffect acceptability (Dąbrowska )

I ‘Ubiquitous’ ≠ ‘necessary’

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based accountI What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based accountI What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based accountI What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based accountI What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based account

I What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

. . . . . .

Similarity and productivity questions Psyology of similarity Ba to questions Conclusions

Conclusions

I In an exemplar model, likelihood of category membership isdetermined by similarity to category exemplars

I When similarity is judged for the purpose of categorization,necessary features of the category have increased salience

I For questions, foregrounding of the complement clause maybe the relevant dimension of similarity

I BCI is compatible with a similarity-based accountI What makes a feature necessary?

Siva Kalyan Australian National University

Similarity in linguistic categorization

Thank you!

. . . . . .