1 / 13

PROTOTYPE THEORY See also “VARIES”

PROTOTYPE THEORY See also “VARIES”. by Don L. F. Nilsen. FAMILY RESEMBLANCES. The idea that members of a category may be related to one another without all members having any properties in common that define the category. EXAMPLES: Wittgenstein’s “games”- “chess” vs. “soccer” vs. “dice”.

benicio
Download Presentation

PROTOTYPE THEORY See also “VARIES”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROTOTYPE THEORYSee also “VARIES” by Don L. F. Nilsen 10

  2. FAMILY RESEMBLANCES • The idea that members of a category may be related to one another without all members having any properties in common that define the category. • EXAMPLES: Wittgenstein’s “games”- “chess” vs. “soccer” vs. “dice” 10

  3. GENERALITY • The idea that some members of a category may be “better examples” of that category than others. • EXAMPLES: Ludwig Wittgenstein “prime number” vs. “fraction”; Lakoff “robin” vs. “penguin” 10

  4. GESTALT RECOGNITION • The idea that related meanings of words form categories and that the meanings bear family resemblances to one another. • EXAMPLE: John L. Austin “cricket bat” “cricket umpire” 10

  5. GENERATIVITY • This idea concerns categories that are defined by a generator (a particular member or subcategory) plus rules (or a general principle such as similarity). In such cases, the generator has the status of a central, or “prototypical,” category member. • EXAMPLE: Don Nilsen “self” vs. “mother” “uncle” 10

  6. MEMBERSHIP GRADIENCE • The idea that at least some members have degrees of membership and no clear boundaries. • EXAMPLE: Lofti Zadeh’s “rich” “tall” and most other adjectives 10

  7. CENTRALITY GRADIENCE • The idea that members (or subcategories) which are clearly within the category boundaries may still be more or less central. • EXAMPLE: George Lakoff: “mother of the year” (paragon) vs. “working mother”; “first cousin” vs. “third cousin twice removed” 10

  8. CONCEPTUAL EMBODIMENT • The idea that the properties of certain categories are a consequence of the nature of human biological capacities and of the experience of functioning in a physical and social environment. It is contrasted with the idea that concepts exist independent of the bodily nature of any thinking beings and independent of their experience. • EXAMPLE: Brent Berlin, Paul Kay, and Chad McDaniel’s “color acquisition” 10

  9. FUNCTIONAL EMBODIMENT: • The idea that certain concepts are not merely understood intellectually; rather, they are used automatically, unconsciously, and without noticeable effort as part of normal functioning. Concepts used in this way have a different, and more important, psychological status than those that are only thought about consciously. • EXAMPLES: Roger Brown Noun-Action “cat-pet” “flower-smell” “ball-bounce”; Paul Ekman 7 emotions “happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, interest, relief” 10

  10. !BASIC-LEVEL CATEGORIZATION • The idea that categories are not merely organized in a hierarchy from the most general to the most specific, but are also organized so that the categories that are cognitively basic are “in the middle” of a general-to-specific hierarchy. Generalization proceeds “upward” from the basic level and specialization proceeds “downward.” • EXAMPLE: George Lakoff “apple” “orange” “pine” and other Genus level. 10

  11. !!BASIC-LEVEL PRIMACY • The idea that basic-level categories are functionally and epistemologically primary with respect to the following factors: gestalt perceptions, image formation, motor movement, knowledge, organization, ease of cognitive processing (learning, recognition, memory, etc.), and ease of linguistic expression. • EXAMPLE: Berlin-Kay-McDaniel “primary colors” & “natural colors” 10

  12. !!!METONYMIC REASONING • The idea that a part of a category (that is, a member or subcategory) can stand for the whole category in certain reasoning processes. • EXAMPLES: Eleanor Rosch, Barbara Tversky, K. Hemenway’s “orange” entails “peel” “pulp”; Synecdoche like “7 `head’ of cattle,” and “all `hands’ on deck” 10

  13. References: Eschholz, Paul, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. Language Awareness. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 2001. Nilsen, Alleen Pace, and Don L. F. Nilsen. Encyclopedia of 20th Century American Humor. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Raskin, Victor, ed. The Primer of Humor Research. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1994. 10

More Related