Apr 062011

Can’t stop thinking about dogs today. I find Chaser’s ability to understand superordinate nouns impressive. The thing is word meanings often have fuzzy rather than fixed boundaries. Take the word ‘cup’ for example. When exactly does a cup become a bowl?                 

It’s tempting to think that there are necessary and sufficient conditions that dictate where one word stops and another begins, but often there aren’t precise boundaries.

The philosopher, Wittgenstein, illustrated it beautifully when he talked about the word ‘game’.  He said:

Consider, for example, the proceedings that we call “games”. I mean board-games, card games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? – Don’t say “There must be something in common, or they would not be called games, but look and see whether there is anything common to all. – For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships and a whole series of them at that. To repeat, don’t think, but look.

Look for example at board games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many features drop out and others appear. When we pass to ball games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.

–Are they all “Amusing?” Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing, but when a child throws his ball at a wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared? And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear.’

I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than “family resemblances”; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.- And I shall say: “games” form a family.

So there’s a family of words that go by the name ‘game’, but presumably we think some games are gamier than others – just as we might think some dogs are doggier than others (as Eleanor Rosch might put it).

So could you do me a favour and answer this question for me? Take a look at these three dogs. Which one looks doggiest to you? I don’t mean which one do you like the look of the most. I mean which one looks like the best representative of the class of things that we call dogs. Just click the poll, and of course I’ll be delighted to hear more thoughts in the comments. Woof!

Dog 1                                                                                     Dog 2

Dog 3


 Posted by at 10:31 pm

  12 Responses to “The doggiest dog – please answer my poll”

  1. It was a tough decision between 1 and 3. 2 is a whatever. 1 is my fave, the kind of dog I want to own but being objective, I guess number 3 is the doggiest of them all. 🙂

  2. I agree with Karenne that the decision between 1 and 3 is tough. I decided on 1 though because it’s closest to a wolf which is a dog prototype if you like.

  3. Yes, it’s clearly Dog 3! I mean, could it be any more doggy? It’s like the dog’s dog. It’s probably even called Fido, or Rover.
    Number 1 is a kind of wolf, and Dog 2 is the kind of thing you use to wipe dust off the furniture.

  4. I often wonder how dogs get to be a “family” at all. From Chihuahua to Great Dane. Wittgenstein might have addressed that. The above depends on whether one views dogs as killers or characters! #2 is a cat.

  5. For some reason I would have voted for the one I voted for more quickly if it’d been brown. 😛

  6. Ha! I’ve been keeping quiet because I don’t want to skew the results but your answers are so funny and interesting and very much appreciated.
    I’m looking forward to posting about Eleanor Rosch’s findings.

  7. It was hard to choose between 1 and 3. I would have gone for 1 because it looks a bit like my own dog Sofia, but I went for number 3 as looking the “doggiest”.

    I love that look in a dog when they fix their eyes on you and seem to communicate their feelings.

  8. […] are necessary and sufficient conditions that apply to all members in a category, when in practice, as Wittgenstein has pointed out,  there aren’t. I think this worth remembering when we’re teaching. Students may be […]

  9. I think the photos may not be neutral enough to get an accurate result.
    Part of our perception of dogginess must be influenced by whether the dogs are doing doggy things or not.
    Pictures one and three are clearly doing doggy type stuff whereas picture three is doing stuff that could be human.
    I guess the positions of the dogs need to be the same?

  10. Ha! Well Tony, his actual name is Carter. His previous owner named him after a player in the Philadelphia Flyers – our local ice hockey team. I agree that Fido or Rover would have been very apt, but as things seem to go flying where ever he goes, Carter works very well too.

  11. Ah, I didn’t have much choice with the photos I’m afraid, Chris. I went to flickr and got shots that kind owners had uploaded with a creative commons licence. And getting Carter to agree to sit still long enough for us to snap him took a lot of treats!

  12. I kept thinking–I can’t choose one because my dog or one like him wasn’t there so I chose number three, which is stereotypically a fireman’s dog… my dog, though, is a ‘real’ dog…hehe

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.