Table 2.
Category‐level typicality ratings (1‐6) from Pilot Study 3 show similarities across Label types for Typical vs. Atypical exemplar pictures for the ten categories used in study 2
| Morphological | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical | Atypical | |||
| SHOES xie2zi | loafers pi2xie2 | 5.33 | slippers tuo1xie2 | 4.30 |
| PANTS ku4zi | trousers xi1ku4 | 5.38 | overalls bei1dai4ku4 | 4.83 |
| VEHICLE che1 | car jiao4che1 | 5.52 | train huo3che1 | 4.21 |
| WRITING INSTRUMENT bi3 | pencil qian1bi3 | 5.38 | chalk fen3bi3 | 3.17 |
| PAPER zhi3 | writing paper xin4zhi3 | 5.13 | toilet paper shou3zhi3 | 4.87 |
| Orthographic | ||||
| Typical | Atypical | |||
| VEGETABLE cai4 | celery xi1qin2 | 5.30 | eggplant qie2zi3 | 4.74 |
| BUG chong2zi | fly cang1ying | 4.74 | butterfly hu2die2 | 4.08 |
| BIRD niao3 | pigeon ge1zi3 | 5.43 | penguin qi3e2 | 3.00 |
| SHIP chuan2 | warship jun1jian4 | 5.22 | yacht you2ting3 | 4.39 |
| STONE shi2tou2 | rock yan2shi | 4.74 | brick zhuan1tou2 | 3.17 |
Typical items (Morphological, M = 5.34, SD = 0.14; Orthographic, M = 5.09, SD = 0.32), Atypical items (Morphological, M = 4.28, SD = 0.69; Orthographic, M = 3.88, SD = 0.76). A Typicality (Typical vs. Atypical) by Label type (Morphological vs. Orthographic) ANOVA revealed only a main effect of Typicality, F (1, 4) = 22.97, P = 0.009. No main effect of Label type or interactions between Typicality and Label type were found.