CATEGORIZATION – NOMINATION
Categorization refers to the various cognitive and practical operations by which an individual is integrated into a category and designated by the name attached to that category:
— What is this? Asking for the identification of an unnamed object
— This is a X Name attached to a category
We will consider first current objects which names are taken from the lexicon or from a popular scientific taxonomy or theory, such as those exploited in the dictionaries of current language. The case of emergent categories and the associated neological process involved will be mentioned separately.
Categorization as a cognitive and empirical operation cannot be separated from nomination, a linguistic operation. The classic example illustrating Toulmin’s layout of argument is an example of an administrative categorization: the individual Harry is categorized as a British citizen on the basis of the criterion, “— to be born in Bermuda”.
Categorization is the first step in implementing an argumentation by definition, “he is a British citizen, so …”. In law, categorization corresponds to the legal qualification of an act (is it a crime or an accident?); it determines the law applicable to the case, S. Stasis.
1. Categorization tests: distinctive features and global analogy
An individual is given a name and placed in a category on the basis of a set of distinctive features or on the basis out of a global analogy with an outstanding member of the category.
Categorization by distinctive features is based upon a definition. A definition of a noun is a set of heterogeneous characteristics that can be used to test an individual for the corresponding category. If a significant number of these characteristics fit the description of the individual, then the individual belongs to that category, and can be given the corresponding name.
If the categorization and naming are based on unsystematic, anecdotal features, the category is inconsistent: “the bird is grey, the sky is grey, the bird is a cloud, the cloud is a bird” see Intra-categorical analogy.
Categorization by analogy is based on a common global form (Gestalt) shared by the individual under consideration and a prototypical member of the category: this really looks like a Scotch bonnet, it must be a Scotch Bonnet.
The concrete tasks of nomination and categorization combine the two sets of tools, distinctive features and analogy. The distinctive features can be drawn from the stereotype rather than from any kind of definition; all the features found on the stereotype tend to be considered as essential for the definition of the category and to qualify as a member of that category.
Binary and gradual categorization — Categorization made on the basis of essential, distinctive features means that category predicates are binary: an individual is a member of a category or is not.
If membership within a category is determined simply by stacking any sufficient number of features, category predicates are gradual; the richer the combination of features, the stronger the association with the category. Similarly, a bird that looks more like the prototypical bird than another is “more” a bird than the other one. Category membership becomes gradual, and its top members cannot be surpassed; this can be the meaning of the juvenile expression “more X than him, you die”, “cooler than him, you die” in other words, one comes out of the category upwards.
Categorization mistake? — In Alice in Wonderland, the pigeon wrongly categorizes Alice as a snake:
‘Serpent!’ screamed the pigeon.
‘I’m not a serpent’, said Alice indignantly. ‘Let me alone!’ […]
‘A likely story indeed!’ said the pigeon in a tone of the deepest contempt. ‘I’ve seen a good many little girls in my time, but never one with such a neck as that! No, no! You’re a serpent; and there is no use denying it. I suppose you’ll be telling me next that you never tasted an egg!’
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland. [1865] [1].
The pigeon wrongly categorizes Alice as a snake because of the long neck she develops in this episode. For the pigeon, this feature is reminiscent of a snake, so that the pigeon fears for its eggs; and furthermore, Alice eats eggs, a feature that may not be essential to the categorization of beings, but which reinforces the pigeon’s conclusion.
From an essentialist point of view, the pigeon miscategorizes Alice; “having a long neck” is neither a specific difference nor a characteristic proper of snakes; giraffes, herons, swans… are also animals with long necks. In fact, the pigeon classifies Alice from a functional point of view. From the pigeon’s perspective, a long neck is a natural sign of danger and it is wise to apply the precautionary principle, i.e. to cry “snake!” the way people shout “wolf!” when they see a strange creature lurking behind the house.
2. Technical categorization
The categorization-nomination may be expressed by a simple judgment about an individual “X is a bastard, you can see that immediately”; most designations are not the result of a careful examination of the relevant criteria, but when in doubt, the availability of such criteria proves essential. The mushroom picker who is in doubt as to the nature of the mushroom he has just picked must engage in a careful process of categorization; the same goes for the municipal oficial ho is trying to determine the rights of a person applying for social security benefits. First of all, they must refer to the criteria listed in the relevant reference books: the mushrooms encyclopedia in the first case; and the decrees and regulations defining the conditions for granting social security benefits in the second. A well-conducted categoriation process will lead to well-founded conclusions, such as:
Y is / is not a marasmius oreades, i.e., a Scotch bonnet.
X is / is not a single parent in the administrative sense of the expression.
The investigators will then take the appropriate action: keep the mushroom to eat or throw it away; accept or deny the application for social security benefits.
Social Categorization — A parent is defined as “a parent or a person who bears the financial burden of one or more children”. “To be single” is defined as: “being widowed, divorced, separated or unmarried and not living together”. The meaning of « parent » is finally extended to include “pregnant” and “people who have the legal responsibility of a child”.
Natural Categorization — Wikipedia describes the Scotch Bonnet as follows:
Marasmius oreades, the Scotch bonnet, is also known as the fairy ring mushroom or fairy ring champignon. The latter name tends to cause some confusion, as many other mushrooms grow in fairy rings (such as the edible Agaricus campestris, the poisonous Chlorophyllum molybdyte, and many others).
Distribution and habitat — Marasmius oreades grows widely throughout North America and Europe in the summer and autumn (fall) (June – November in the UK), or all year round in warmer climates. It loves grassy areas such as lawns, meadows, and even dunes in coastal areas.
Description — It grows gregariously in clumps, arcs, or rings (type II, which makes the grass to grow and become greener). The cap is 1-5 cm in diameter; bell-shaped with a slghtly inrolled margin at first, becoming broadly convex with a flat or raised margin, but usually retaining a slight central bump — an « umbo »; dry; smooth; pale tan or buff, occasionally white, or reddish tan; usually changing colour markedly as it dries out; the margin sometimes faintly lined.
The naked, pale stem grows up to about 7cm by 5mm in diameter.
The gills are attached to the stem or free from it, fairly distant (rather a distinctive character), and white or pale tan, dropping a white spore print. The spores, themselves, are 7-10 x 4-6 µ; smooth; elliptic; inamyloid. Cystidia absent. Pileipellis without broom cells.
This mushroom can be mistaken for the toxic Clitocybe rivulosa which lacks an umbo, is white to grey in colour, and has closely spaced decurrent gills.
Wikipedia, Marasmius oreades
If the harvested item complies with this description, then it is a Scotch bonnet. Categorization is made on the basis of a n umber of quite different procedures: observing whether the key elements of a definition by description apply to the individual; looking carefully at the picture showing a prototypical Scotch bonnet; testing the object for its “elasticity under finger pressure”. Some features of the definition can be checked immediately, for example, by looking at the surroundings:
grassy area —grows gregariously in clusters, arcs, or rings (ibid.);
or at the mushroom itself:
a slight central bump: an ‘umbo’ (ibid.);
or practicing a small experiment:
usually a marked change in color as it dries out (ibid.)
These are positive criteria, which, if fulfilled, justify the claim that « this is a M. oreades ».
For the task of categorizing and naming, the distinguishing criteria are particularly important; the umbo criterion proves to be essential, and, for some other species, vital:
This mushroom can be mistaken for the toxic Clitocybe rivulosa which lacks an umbo, is white to grey in color, and has closely spaced decurrent gills (id.)
In contrast the name derived criteria “fairy ring mushroom” seems to be a necessary, but not sufficient criterion, very risky as it is shared by both edible and toxic species. These are key criteria in the case of categorization issues (cf. infra, §3).
Other parts of the definition may remain puzzling to many: “Inamyloid. Cystidia absent. Pileipellis without broom cells”. Categorization is usually based on a selection of criteria. Once a categorization has been made in terms of a reasonable set of elements, it is possible to assign to the object under consideration all of the features mentioned in the definition. In this way, categorization combined with definition becomes a powerful argumentation machine, argumentation by definition:
it is a Scotch Bonnet, SO “Inamyloid, etc.
Or, perhaps more realistically:
“Many mushroom connoisseurs are fond of M. oreades” SO, let’s cook it now!
With time and experience, this knowledge, these manipulations and, above all, this reasoning will be incorporated into the perception, and the forager will immediately see and recognize Marasmius oreades as such: “look, Scotch bonnets!”.
3. Problems of categorization
The fact that categorization is an argumentation-based process is clearly illustrated by borderline cases, where the person or situation in question meets some, but not all, of the criteria defining the given category.
Let us consider the above case of social benefits, provided by the state to help a single parent to raise a child. The municipal employee receives the following application:
I am currently separated from my husband, who has left the marital home, to live with another woman. We are taking steps to divorce, but in the meantime, I am living alone with my daughter.
This woman is not divorced, but is apparently involved in court proceedings, or at least planning to file for divorce. Does she therefore qualify for immediate financial assistance?
A stasis or conflict of categorization occurs when discourse and counter-discourse are based on conflicting categorizations of the same event, action, or person:
S1_1 — He is a poor guy
S2 — No, he’s a real bastard
S1_2 — No, he is a poor guy, we should feel sorry for him
S1_1 — Syldavia is a big democracy now!
S2_1 — How can you talk about democracy in a country that does not respect the rights of minorities?
S1_2 — There are plenty of democracies that do not respect minority rights.
Such antagonistic categorizations occur frequently in conversations.
— In dialogue (1), the antagonistic categorizations of the same individual as a poor guy vs. a bastard, are simply stated and repeated.
— In dialogue (2), S2_1 rejects the categorization of Syldavia as a democracy, arguing that protecting the right of the minorities is a necessary feature to qualify as a democracy. S1_2 maintains and supports his assessment by arguing that democratic regimes, as they are, often fail to respect minority rights. In a very common opposition, S1 categorizes Syldavia according to an essentialist criterion, S2 according to an empirical criterion, which opens a perfect argumentative situation.
[1] Quoted after Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, BookVirtual digital edition. P. 71; 72-73. https://www.adobe.com/be_en/active-use/pdf/Alice_in_Wonderland.pdf (11-08-2017).