I decided to just collect and curate these two appendices on one page, rather than splitting them up.
The first goes over some cognitive functions involved in categorization.
The second evaluates some of ASHA’s iffy stances.
A “zak” was likely to be interpreted as “fish” if it labeled a single salmon – a fairly typical-looking fish – but it was interpreted as "salmon" if illustrated by three salmon. But if “zak” labeled even a single odd-looking fish – like a blowfish – the children were more likely to decide that the word meant “blowfish” than “"fish.”