Languages & Linguistics
Prototype Theory
Prototype theory is a concept in cognitive psychology and linguistics that suggests categories are organized around a central, typical example, or prototype, rather than a strict set of defining features. It proposes that our understanding of categories is based on our experiences and the most representative examples within those categories, allowing for flexibility and variation in how we perceive and categorize objects and concepts.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
11 Key excerpts on "Prototype Theory"
eBook - PDF- Dirk Geeraerts(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
8 These remarks did not, however, have much effect as far as theory formation was concerned. In particular, it is only with the advent of Prototype Theory that contemporary linguistics developed a valid model for the polysemy of lexical items. This is perhaps the single most appealing characteristic of pro-totype theory: here at last is a descriptive approach to lexical meaning in which our pretheoretical intuitions about gradedness, fuzziness, flexibility, clustering of senses etc. receive due attention. In the second place, Prototype Theory appears to be a productive theory not just in the sense that its insights into the structure of lexical categories can be easily applied in various fields of the lexicon, but also in the sense that it may be Chapter 4: Prototype Theory 145 extended towards other aspects of linguistics. Whereas Prototype Theory started with being descriptively fruitful in lexical semantics, it soon became theoretically fruitful in the sense that other areas of linguistics were taken into consideration. A few recent examples of such extensions may suffice: phonology (Nathan 1986), morphology (Bybee and Moder 1983; Post 1986), syntax (Van Oosten 1986; Ross 1987), historical linguistics (Winters 1987; Aijmer 1985), markedness theory (Van Langendonck 1986), theoretical lexicography (Geeraerts 1985c). Through these and similar extensions, 9 Prototype Theory has become one of the cornerstones of Cognitive Linguistics, which tries to account for the interaction between language and cognition on all levels of linguistic structure: one need only have a look at the prominent place attributed to a prototypical conception of categorial structure in Langacker (1987) (one of the basic works of the Cognitive Linguistic approach) to appreciate its importance. 10 In this sense, the development of Prototype Theory into Cognitive Linguistics contains exciting promises of a unified cognitive theory of linguistic categorization.
eBook - PDF- Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Moreover, the theory is unable to account for prototype effects, that is, speakers’ judgements that some entities are ‘better’ examples of a category than others. These findings led to the development of Prototype Theory, whereby a category is structured around its good examples. This article reviews the relevant empirical findings and discusses a number of different ways in which prototype categories can be theorized, with particular reference to the functional basis of categories and their role in broader conceptual structures. The article concludes with a discussion of how the notion of prototype category has been extended to handle polysemy, where the various senses of a word can be structured around, and can be derived from, a more central, prototypical sense. 1. Introduction In everyday discourse, the term ‘prototype’ refers to an engineer’s model which, after testing and possible improvement, may then go into mass production. In linguistics and in cognitive science more generally, the term has acquired a special-ized sense, although the idea of a basic unit, from which other examples can be derived, may still be discerned.The term, namely, refers to the best, most typical, or most central member of category. Things belong in the category in virtue of their sharing of commonalities with the prototype. Prototype Theory refers to this view on the nature of categories. This article examines the role of prototypes in semantics, especially in lexical seman-tics. To the extent that words can be said to be names of categories, Prototype Theory becomes a theory of word meaning. Prototype Theory contrasts with the so-called classical, or Aristotelian theory of cat-egorization (Lakoff 1982, 1987; Taylor 2003a). According to the classical theory, a cat-egory is defined in terms of a set of properties, or features, and an entity is a member of the category if it exhibits each of the features. Each of the features is necessary, jointly they are sufficient.
eBook - ePub- Farzad Sharifian(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Under a crosscultural perspective, Prototype Theory predicts not only that translation-equivalent categories from two cultures exhibit a centre–periphery structure, but also that the prototype and prototypicality gradation among the category members are culturally situated. This hypothesis has been consistently verified in the relevant literature (e.g. Schwanenflugel and Rey 1986 ; Kövecses 2000 ; Malt, Sloman and Gennari 2003 ; Athanasopoulos 2009). The resulting differences at the conceptual level reflect specific physical environments and varied cultural beliefs and values. The variation in cultural experiences determines the extent to which conceptual categories are universal, widespread, or culture specific. Language, from a CL point of view, is ‘a collection of form-meaning pairs, where the meanings are concepts in the conceptual system’ (Lakoff 1987 : 539). This characterization of language implies that learning a language other than one’s mother tongue is not only a matter of familiarizing oneself with another set of linguistic forms but also an issue of adopting new ways of perceiving and conceptualizing the world, a stance that was already famously expressed by Humboldt against the background of his notion of ‘world-view’: Thus, learning a foreign language ought to be the attainment of a new standpoint in the previously held world view. And, in fact, this is the case to a certain extent, since every language contains the entire fabric of concepts and the way of conceptualising of a part of the human kind
eBook - ePub- Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Heusinger, Paul Portner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
John R. Taylor2 Prototype Theory
John R. Taylor , Dunedin, New Zealand1. Introduction 2. Prototype effects 3. Prototypes and the basic level 4. The cultural context of categories 5. Prototypes and categories 6. Objections to prototypes 7. Words and the world 8. Prototypes and polysemy 9. ReferencesAbstract: According to a long-established theory, categories are defined in terms of a set of features. Entities belong in the category if, and only if, they exhibit each of the defining features. The theory is problematic for a number of reasons. Many of the categories which are lexicalized in language are incompatible with this kind of definition, in that category members do not necessarily share the set of defining features. Moreover, the theory is unable to account for prototype effects, that is, speakers’ judgements that some entities are ‘better’ examples of a category than others. These findings led to the development of Prototype Theory, whereby a category is structured around its good examples. This article reviews the relevant empirical findings and discusses a number of different ways in which prototype categories can be theorized, with particular reference to the functional basis of categories and their role in broader conceptual structures. The article concludes with a discussion of how the notion of prototype category has been extended to handle polysemy, where the various senses of a word can be structured around, and can be derived from, a more central, prototypical sense.1 Introduction
In everyday discourse, the term ‘prototype’ refers to an engineer’s model which, after testing and possible improvement, may then go into mass production.In linguistics and in cognitive science more generally, the term has acquired a specialized sense, although the idea of a basic unit, from which other examples can be derived, may still be discerned. The term, namely, refers to the best, most typical, or most central member of category. Things belong in the category in virtue of their sharing of commonalities with the prototype. Prototype Theory refers to this view on the nature of categories.
eBook - PDF- Karol Janicki(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The properties of the concepts utilized in interaction are thus partly a function of the experience of all the individual participants of the interaction. It will be remembered that it is exactly in this experience that concepts are grounded. The experiential nature of human categorization relates directly to the notion of prototype. Thus we embark upon the third crucial feature of prototype-oriented linguistics, namely, the claim that concepts should be viewed as prototypes. 3) Concepts should be viewed as prototypes The Prototype Theory of the concept (concepts thought of as the little bits and pieces in terms of which we categorize world phenomena) Prototype oriented linguistics 23 advanced by Rosch (1978) and later strongly supported by others (for example, Langacker 1983) has so far stood up to severe tests, and, in Popperian terms, may now be said to have been corroborated to a significant degree. Roughly, what the theory claims is that the categories to which we resort when perceiving the world are mental images, mental descriptions, which, importantly, are nondiscrete. And, also importantly, those categories often appear to be typical images, typical descriptions, which the individual has learned in the ontogenetic process. In other words, the prototype-oriented linguist assumes, I think rightly, that we organize our categorization of world phenomena around prototypes, i.e. typical instances of concepts. When nontypical instances of concepts come to the fore much freedom is left for the individual to assign the given instance to one concept or another. If that freedom is coupled with the significant fact that what is a typical image or description (= proto-type) of 'table', for example, for one person is not necessarily a typical image or description of 'table' for another, we are faced with a multitude of sets of concepts in terms of which individuals perceive the universe.
- Richard A. Geiger, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Richard A. Geiger, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
A functional view on prototypes Hansjakob Seiler 1. Introduction The human mind may produce prototypization within virtually any realm of cognition and behavior. A comparative prototype-typology might prove to be an interesting field of study - perhaps a new subfield of semiotics. This, however, would presuppose a clear view on the samenesses and differences of prototypization in these various fields. It seems more realistic for the time being for the linguist to confine himself to describing prototypization within the realm of language proper. The literature on prototypes has steadily grown in the past ten years or so. I will confine myself to mentioning the volume on Noun classes and categorization (Craig 1986), which contains a wealth of factual information on the subject, along with some theoretical vistas. By and large, however, linguistic prototype research is still basically in a taxonomic stage - the precondition for moving beyond. The procedure is largely per ostensionem, and by accumulating examples of prototypes. We still lack a comprehensive Prototype Theory. The following pages are intended, not to provide such a theory, but to take the first steps in this direction. Section 2 will feature some of the elements of a functional theory of prototypes. They have been developed by the author within the framework of the UNITYP model of research on language universale and typology. Section 3 will provide a discussion of prototypization with regard to selected phenomena from a wide range of levels of analysis: phonology, morphosyntax, speech acts, and the lexicon. Prototypization will finally be studied within one of the universal dimensions, that of apprehension -the linguistic representa-tion of the concepts of objects - as proposed by Seiler (1986). 2. Elements of a functional theory of prototypes 1. The notion of prototype with its content, parametric optimization with regard to a given function, belongs to the basic premises of
eBook - PDFStructuring the Lexicon
A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy
- Dagmar Divjak(Author)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Prototype Theory 149 categories maximize the number of properties shared by members and minimize the number of properties shared by non-members. Having prototypes on the ba-sic level of a taxonomy, then, ensures maximal information for minimal cognitive effort. Subordinate categories, finally, display an almost identical Gestalt, a large number of category-wide attributes and salient specific attribute(s). Elements on the subordinate level, such as Weimaraner, have a specifying function. It has to be borne in mind, though, that cognitive units are not discrete: the transition from the basic to subordinate level is better regarded as gradual. 1.1.3. Category structure representations What does the internal structure look like of a category that is organized by a prototype? Within cognitive linguistics, complex categories are typically repre-sented in one of two ways, i.e., as having a schematic or a radial structure, as I mentioned briefly in Chapter One, Section 2.3.2. According to Langacker (1987a: 369, 371), complex categories are best con-ceived and described as schematic networks of interrelated senses. A schema is an abstract characterization that is fully compatible with all the members of the category it defines. These members of a linguistic category, e.g., interrelated senses, are linked to each other by categorizing relationships such as instantiation and extension (Langacker 1999: 101–103); both involve an act of comparison in which a standard is matched against a target. Instantiation is a limiting case of extension that arises when the discrepancy is zero. Extension constitutes recog-nition accomplished only with a certain amount of ‘strain’. Extension does not occur at random, however, it implies some abstract commonality. Lakoff (1987: 83–84, ch. 6), on the other hand, promotes the radial category structure. A radial category has, apart from a central instance, a number of conventionalized variations on that central instance.
eBook - PDFAdvances in Visual Semiotics
The Semiotic Web 1992-93
- (Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Second, the representation of the world by language is nominal while its representation in perceptual categories is ordinal. These two issues will be addressed in turn in this section. I will conclude this chapter with a comparison between the linguistic sign and the visual sign as it is described by Groupe μ (1992). Prototypes and Linguistic Categories Cognitive psychology and natural categorization offer experimental evidence releas-ing cognitive linguists (Langacker 1986, 1987, 1991; Talmy 1983, 1988) from the shackles of necessary and sufficient conditions, which are ill-suited to the description of language. However, as should be clear from the preceding sections, prototypes are merely one aspect of natural categorization. In my view, their role 434 C. Vandeloise in language is well defined only for physiological prototypes and color categories. However, through Lakoffs work (1972,1982), prototypes gained such a popular-ity in linguistics that a textbook in cognitive linguistics (Taylor 1989) bears the subtitle: Prototypes and Linguistics. 10 Lakoff (1987), however, dramatically modifies his views on prototypes. Therefore, two trends must be distinguished in his work. According to the former, prototypes determine the structure of any linguistic category. After 1987, prototypes are downgraded to the rank of secon-dary effects. In this section, I will try to show that both positions need to be qualified. I will especially question the relationship between linguistic prototypes and centrality. Rosch's research is essentially limited to perceptual categories. The most abstract category Rosch deals with is that of crime (Rosch 1973). Lakoff extends Rosch's research to all the linguistic categories, be they concrete nouns or abstract nouns, states or actions described by verbs, spatial relations described by preposi-tions or logical words.
eBook - PDFCognitive Sociolinguistics
Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems
- Gitte Kristiansen, René Dirven, Gitte Kristiansen, René Dirven(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The possibility of incorporating rigid nuances as contextually specific applications in a prototypically organized cluster of 28 Dirk Geeraerts senses is also supported by the recognition that it is possible to enforce a rigid interpretation of almost any natural kind category by putting hedged questions such as: ‘Is thing x properly speaking still a member of category A ? (‘Properly speaking, Twin Earth water isn’t water at all’, and so on.) However, this combination of prototypicality and stereotypicality (a combination that basically takes the form of an incorporation of stereo-types and rigidly referring meanings into the prototypical model) is rather too facile. There is also a considerable difference between stereotypes and prototypes that needs to be spelled out and that will call for a more thorough analysis. Both aspects of Putnam’s approach, in fact, contrast sharply with specific features of prototypicality as it is usually con-ceived of. To begin with, the division of linguistic labor implies that linguistic communities are not homogeneous: by definition, semantic knowledge is unevenly distributed over the members of the speech community. Proto-type-theoretical studies, on the other hand, generally tend to ignore the question whether and to what extent the prototype structure of the cat-egory is shared by all the speakers of the language. This is remarkable, because the prototypical model of category structure might be plausibly interpreted as involving social variation over individuals rather than just psychological variation over contexts of use. For instance, if a lexical category consists of a core reading A and peripheral senses A 1 , A 2 , and A 3 , the subconcepts might be variously distributed over subgroups of the linguistic community.
- Martin Pütz, René Dirven, Martin Pütz, René Dirven(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Perhaps, the most basic question of all (and certainly the theoretically most controversial one) concerns the nature of the CenRP. Unlike linguists, psychologists have long been pre-occupied about whether conceptual categories contain or are organized around abstract representations (schemas), averages over multiple instances (prototypes), or the individual instances themselves (token exem-plars). The best working model of what a network contains might prove to be a mixed model, containing schemas, prototypes, and actual exemplars. Speakers certainly can provide examples of all three types of meanings when queried. On the whole, cognitive linguists usually assume some form of categorization by prototype (notably Taylor 1989, Cruse 1990, Lehrer 1990), though prototypes per se remain ill-defined and controversial notions (see Geeraerts 1989, 1992; Vandeloise 1990; Wierzbicka 1990). Here-tofore, I have been using prototype rather loosely as a cover term for a variety of quite dissimilar proposals [4], but this terminological vagueness is a sin that many cognitive linguists are guilty of, and understandably so. The prototype/exemplar, abstract/concrete, simplex/aggregate nature of a categorial center is an issue that is still unresolved in psychological Prepositional prototypes 145 research. In the remainder of this paper, I will focus on a narrower and much more basic question: Ignoring temporarily whether or not a prototype or CenRP represents an average over multiple use types or whether it is any one of several actual stored exemplars, for each of the acknowledgedly spatial prepositions, at, on, and in, is the prototype spatial or not? 3. The search for the center Lexical and cognitive semantic accounts of prepositional meaning have long posited spatial prototypes for prepositions. Nevertheless, the prototypical status of these spatial senses has heretofore not been established indepen-dently.
eBook - PDFOrganising Knowledge
Methods and Case Studies
- J. Gadner, R. Buber, L. Richards, J. Gadner, R. Buber, L. Richards(Authors)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
3 In a path-breaking work, Lakoff (1987, pp. 91 ff., 283) claims that such prototype effects and complex categories are processed as spatial gestal- ten. Categories with prototypes are not structured as containers as in mathematics, but as ‘radial’ categories, that is, they are internally struc- tured by a chaining principle and by centre–periphery logic. Prototypical features such as ‘bad faith’ reside at the centre of the category (by virtue of centre–periphery logic, central is salient and important), while the less prototypical members are placed at the fuzzy outer reaches. Figure 5.1 depicts category prototypes as squares. Prototype models and family resemblances as overlaps and chains Lakoff (1987, pp. 74 ff.) demonstrates that the English concept of ‘mother’ has no single definition – that is, necessary and sufficient attributes – that captures all the nuances of how the word is used. Rather it encom- passes a genetic model, a nurturance model, a marital model (the father’s wife) and a genealogical model (the closest female ancestor). The differ- ent models are used for different senses of ‘mother’. Thus the proverb ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ draws on the birth model, while ‘he wants his girlfriend to mother him’ is derived from the nurturance model. With aprototypical ‘mothers’ (stepmother, surrogate mother, adoptive mother, foster mother, biological mother, donor mother and so on) these models do not go together, so we use them selectively. The concept of a ‘real mother’, in which all these criteria coincide, is situated where the submodels overlap, constituting the category prototype. Alternatively, categories that lack a single prototype can be held together by a chain of ‘family resemblances’ (Wittgenstein, 1953). For example 78 Gestalt-Based Linguistics and the GABEK Method Figure 5.1 Prototypicality as a centre–periphery image
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
