Skip to main content
. 2010 Mar 26;31(11):1786–1801. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20974

Table  .

Category‐level typicality ratings (1‐6) in Pilot Study 2 show similarities across languages for Typical vs. Atypical items for the ten categories used in Study 1

Mandarin
Typical Atypical
SHOES loafers 5.33 slippers 4.30
PANTS trousers 5.38 overalls 4.83
VEHICLE car 5.52 train 4.21
WRITING INSTRUMENT pencil 5.00 chalk 3.17
STATION train station 4.74 airport 1.96
BUG fly 4.74 butterfly 4.08
BUILDING office building 5.75 garage 1.50
OIL engine oil 4.39 gasoline 3.41
VEGETABLE celery 5.30 eggplant 4.74
PAPER writing paper 5.13 toilet paper 4.87
English
Typical Atypical
SHOES loafers 5.30 slippers 3.15
PANTS trousers 5.85 overalls 4.19
VEHICLE car 5.96 train 3.59
WRITING INSTRUMENT pencil 5.81 chalk 4.33
STATION train station 5.77 airport 3.59
BUG fly 5.85 butterfly 4.74
BUILDING office building 5.85 garage 2.84
OIL engine oil 5.54 gasoline 3.74
VEGETABLE celery 5.59 eggplant 4.96
PAPER writing paper 5.89 toilet paper 3.85

Typical items (Chinese, M = 5.13, SD = 0.39; English, M = 5.74, SD = 0.19), Atypical items (Chinese, M = 3.70, SD = 1.13; English, M = 3.90, SD = 0.63). A Typicality (Typical vs. Atypical) by Language (English vs. Mandarin) ANOVA revealed only a main effect of Typicality, F (1, 18) = 53.68, P < 0.001. No significant effects of Language or Typicality by Language interactions were found.