Naming from definition: The role of feature type and feature distinctiveness

Abstract

The present paper evaluates the contribution of feature type and feature distinctiveness to naming of living and nonliving things using a naming from definition task. Normal subjects read verbal descriptions containing features varying in type (i.e., sensory vs. functional) and distinctiveness (i.e., distinct vs. shared) and were asked to name the concept described and to select the three features that most contributed to their answer. Main results showed that sensory features were selected more often than functional features to support naming living things and that, independent of feature type, more distinct features were selected to support naming more often than shared features. Results are discussed considering the implications for understanding naming and for neuropsychological evaluation.

This research was supported by the Centro de Psicometria e Psicologia da Educação da Universidade de Lisboa. I thank Ana Sofia Morais, Inês A. Pinto, Joana Carmo, and M. Francisca Fonseca for their help in data collection. I also thank G. Sartori and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Notes

¹This general principle is further developed and specified by the authors (see Humphreys et al., 2002), but as the present study uses a naming from definition task it does not allow the evaluation of this information. As such, it was decided not to include the specifications that were not tested.

²A complete list of the definitions is available from the author at http://www.fpce.ul.pt/pessoal/ulfpfred/aprende/materials/definitions.htm

³The total number of concepts of Garrard et al. (2001) norms is 64 (half living and half nonliving), but we had to limit our selection to the concepts where it was possible to simultaneously manipulate feature type and distinctiveness (especially in the case of nonliving things, where there were many concepts where it was not possible to selected low distinctiveness features).

⁴Five-point familiarity scale (the higher the number the lower the familiarity).