Prototype Theory: an evaluation
1. Preliminaries
This paper discusses prototype theory and aims to evaluate the proposal that prototype structures can serve as word meanings. It has been proposed that prototype structures have cognitive representations that could serve as representations of real world categories. This issue is discussed on the basis of a mainly theoretical approach, while particular issues are more extensively exemplified. A central conclusion is that prototype structures can be considered as having a supplementary role to word meanings, yet do not form an adequate or non-problematic basis overall. The following section introduces some basic features of prototype theory.
2. Prototype Theory: the underlining theory for prototype structures
“What kind of bird are you, if you cannot fly”, said the little bird to the duck. “What kind of bird are you, if you cannot swim”, said the duck and dived. (Prokofiér, Peter und der Wolf)[1]
Prototype theory, within the field of prototype semantics, originated in the mid 1970s with the psycholinguistic research of Eleanor Rosch into the internal structure of categories. Its revolutionary character marked a new era for the discussions on lexical meaning and brought existing theories (such as the classical view) into question.
The above quote represents the essence of the prototypical conception of the structures of categories; people create categories of things and assign the same name (or label) to things that are not exactly the same but similar. In the example although the duck easily observes that the little bird (which could be a sparrow or a blackbird for instance) could not swim and the little bird similarly observes that the duck cannot fly, they still call...
... middle of paper ...
..., (eds.), New ways of analysing variation in English (Washington, D.C. 1973).
Laurence, S. and E. Margolis, (eds.), Concepts and Cognitive Science, (London: Blackwell. 1999).
Lehrer, A., “Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis” in Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization (London: Routledge, 1989).
Rosch, E., “Principles of categorization” in Rosch, E. and B.B. Lloyd, (eds.), Cognition and Categorization (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 1978).
Taylor, J.R. (ed.), Linguistic Categorization, Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
Wierzbicka, A., “Prototypes save: on the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields”, in Tsohatzidis, see Lehrer above
Wittgentein, L., Philosophical Investigations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).
Kistner, A. L. and M. K. Kistner. “The Five Structures of ‘The Changeling’.” Modern Language Studies 11.2 (1981): 40-53. Accessed March 29, 2014.
Gross, R (2010). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour. 6th ed. London: Hodder Education. p188.
In this age,we can see more and more same-gender lovers in the streets and it won’t be uncommon any more. Lot’s of people regard them as unnormal individuals but I don’t agree with them. And today I’d like to show you something about Homosexual.
Hill, Jane H., P. J. Mistry, and Lyle Campbell. The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Berlin [etc.: Mouton De Gruyter, 1998. Print.
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D.L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Bum.Science, 247, 301 – 306McCloskey, M. E. & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 462-472
Firstly, I will outline the article 'On Denoting' giving my own understanding of the theory of descriptions as Russell introduces it. It should be noted that the phrase 'theory of descriptions' is not used in this article, but is coined later in Russell's philosophy.
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams. An Introduction to Language. 8th ed. Boston: Thomson, 2007.
Keil, F. C. and Wilson, R. A. (1999) The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: The MIT Press
Our literal understandings of a word are twins in constant opposition with one another, twins in constant competition to receive the most love from their mother and father. Let us pretend the parents are the literary community that demonstrates love frequently by showing a preference for one of their twins. Donald Davidson's theory expressed in What Metaphors Mean is a tragic, intellectual miscarriage; it is a theory of language that brings forth a stillborn child, a dead metaphor.
In response, they proposed that perception is based on the organization of stimuli into holistic and meaningful forms. They are well-known for the phrase "the whole is different than the sum of its parts. " They proposed several "laws" (really heuristics or "rules of thumb") that are referred to as the Gestalt laws of perceptual organization. These are discussed in the module later on.
The Pragmatic Theory. Searle proposed an account of metaphor that takes Davidson’s theory even further than the Naïve theory and rejects the idea of linguistic ambiguity idea (Lycan 184). Metaphorical utterance is taken to be a linguistic communication and it posits a cognitive mechanism that computes something that could be called metaphorical meaning. This theory of metaphor is the most compelling because metaphor is seen as simply of species of Gricean communication. The problem of explaining how we understand metaphor is a case of explaining how speaker meaning and sentence meaning can be divergent. Gricean logic can provide an instructive way to break down the problem of metaphorical meaning. This theory is the most plausible and overcomes Davidson’s leading objections to metaphorical meaning.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers
Prarthana,S. & Prema, K. (2012). Role of Semantics in the Organization of Mental Lexicon. Language in India.259-277.
Schnitzer, Marc L. Toward a neurolinguistic theory of language. Brain & Language. Vol 6(3) 342-361, Nov 1978.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language (7th ed.). Boston: Heinle.