Prototype Theory

look-alike possiblenessPROTOTYPE THEORY and DEFINITIONSTHE ROLE OF BASIC FACTORS, LEARNT KNOWLEDGE and CULTURE a small-scale falsifiable find out 1.IntroductionThe end of the present empirical inquiry paper is to investigate how trope surmisal change by reversals in defining categories in squ ar life. The theory was introduced by Rosch (1975) in night club to explain how semantic categories be represented in our mind. Several experiments present the functioning of Prototype Theory, but in eachday life we lotstimes categorise instances ground on our paganly bound definitions rather than found on analogousity to a usual instance. Thus, this paper investigates the role of the dickens mechanisms through a small-scale study, armorial bearinging at finding answers to the following research questionsAre substitution classs and definitions formed similarly or differently?What is the role of learnt cognition in creating the prototypes and definitions?Do cultural f actors black market a role in creating prototypes and definitions?2. Literature review article2.1. Basic conceptsIn this section a review of the most eventful concepts related to Prototype Theory will be provided.To begin with, prototype theory suggests that many noetic concepts we have argon really prototypes. (It) has been useful in investigations into how concepts are formed, and to what extent certain(a) concepts nookie be considered universal or specific to certain cultures / spoken languages (Longman mental lexicon of language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2003, p. 432).A prototype is a person or object which is considered (by many concourse) to be representative of its class or assemblage (Longman Dictionary of lyric poem Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2003, p.432). Rosch (1975) pin downs it as the clearest shift of a house, and Aitchinson (1984) also stresses the usuality of the prototype regarding its kin. The prototype consists of a set of protot ypical features, which are the attributes that are shared by most members, but by tho a few non-members (Rosch, 1975), therefore are able to differentiate amid categories.A category is a set of attributes that we consider as characteristics of groups of citizenry or objects, or a number of objects that are considered equivalent (Rosch, 1978). The category put-ons an essential role in word recognition because it faecal matter aid as the basis of appellative of an object, as people often define a concept by reference to typical instances (Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2003, p. 432).Other related concepts to prototypes are stereotype and schema. Stereotypes are beliefs ab come egress groups, i.e. the number of attributes that we consider as characteristics of certain social groups (The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology, p. 520). There are, for instance, stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, gender or certain professions. A schema is a conce pt utilize in pragmatics to refer to a mental representation of a typical instance. Semantic processing allows people to interpret new begets quickly and economically. (Cook, 1997, p. 86). entirely in all, prototypes play an important role in the cognitive processes of categorisation and word identification, which will be discussed in the following section.2.2. Prototypes in categorisationThe mental representation of a prototype is formed on the basis of several factors. First, a prototype is often described on the basis of its carriage the size, the colour or the shape of an object rat influence whether they are considered as typical instances of a category. Second, in some cases it is important what the object is capable of doing. For role model, cardinal of the most important characteristics of a bird is that it can fly, and a wingless(prenominal) bird is often considered as less typical. Moreover, the usage of an object often influences our judgement about the typicality of the object. Finally, the frequency of the word also defines whether we consider it typical or non, as a bird that always sings outside our windows can be judged most typical than an exotic bird that we rarely encounter. All in all, these characteristics influence our judgements of the typicality of objects with regards to certain categories (Rosch, 1978).According to another aspect, two types of attributes can define a category. Aitchinson (1987) distinguishes between identification criteria and stored intimacy, i.e. the attributes that are essential to the identification of a concept, and the attributes that we attach to the objects through our learnt companionship of the serviceman. In this respect the blow of ones culture is of high importance, as there is evidence that prototypes vary from language to language, and from culture to culture (Schwanenflugel and Rey, cited by Field, 2003, p.103). For instance, on the basis of its appearance, a waver could be categorised as a bird, but influenced by our experience we acquired in our biology lessons, we will most probably put the work out in the category of mammal.The role of the above mentioned basic factors, learnt knowledge and cultural stereotypes and schemata was investigated in an empirical study, which will be outlined in the contiguous section.3.Research methodsThe aim of the empirical study is to answer the research questions presented in the Introduction. Research is based on data collected with the help of a questionnaire, and analysed quantitatively.3.1. The research instrumentThe research instrument consisted of two basic parts.In the first part of the questionnaire there are five lists of words that participants had to pronounce on the basis of their typicality with regards to certain categories. The five lists of words were chosen on the basis of Rosch (1975, cited by Field, 2003, p. 102.), and consisted of nine words that had to be evaluated on a 7-item scale, on which 1 means the l east typical, and 7 is the most typical instance.In the second part of the questionnaire participants had to define the same categories with their own words. The aim of the five open-ended items was to identify the basic attributes participants used to formulate a definition of the categories. These answers were then compared with the results of the judgements of prototypicality in the previous task, with the purpose of giving an fib for the similarities and differences in the two kinds of mental operations.3.2. ParticipantsThe research was carried out with the participation of 25 respondents. They were approached through personal contacts on the Internet. The average age of the participants is 22.4 years, and the gender equilibrium is almost equal (with 13 male and 12 female respondents).4.Results and discourseThe aim of this section is to present and analyse the data of the empirical study, with the purpose of finding answers to the research questions.4.1. The judgements of typ icalityThe results of the judgements of the typicality of the instances of the categories are in line with Roschs (1975) findings that prove that the typicality of certain instances is evaluated very similarly by different people. Table 1 shows the parliamentary law of the words within the categoriesTable 1. The order of instances within the categories based on the respondents evaluation on a 1-7 scale.Furniture shuttleVehicle harvest-homeWomantable6.85blackbird6.92car7apple7mother7dresser6.77hawk6.92bus7 orange7nurse6.76chair6.76sparrow6.87subway6.69pear6.93teacher6.67stool5.61raven6.77taxi6.08melon6.54actress6.54lamp4.08parrot6.62cart5.77mango6.54ballerina6.23piano3.62canary6.54yacht4.08fig6.23doctor5.92vase2.39ostrich5.30elevator2nut3.23police-woman4.77picture2.30penguin4.85ski1.85pumpkin2.84mineworker3.30telephone1.92bat1.38wheel-barrow1.69olive2.30football player2.46The evaluation of the prototypicality of the items take inms to be based on several factors. The first factor i s the appearance of the items, which influenced the judgements of prototypicilaty in the case of, for instance, the categories of bird or fruit, where the most typical instances have a lot in common with regards to physical appearance.another(prenominal) aspect is the frequency of the items, that is, how often respondents encounter the given(p) instance of the category in real life. The category of fruit is a good example for the importance of this factor, in which apple and orange were the ones being judged as most typical instances, and the less frequently consumed exotic fruits like mango or fig scored lower. Another example is the category of bird, in which the different evaluations of blackbird and canary cannot be accounted for in terms of physical appearance (they are quite similar in size and form). The frequency of the two species, on the other hand, is different, as the blackbird is a more common type of bird than the canary.A final factor in the judgement of the typicali ty of the objects is cultural schemata and stereotypes. The exceed example of the importance of cultural factors can be seen in the category of woman, where the traditionally feminine roles (e.g. mother, nurse or teacher) scored higher than the traditionally masculine professions (e.g. policewoman, mineworker or football player). Our culturally bound schemas are in work in the case of vehicles as well, where car and bus embody the best instance, while cart scored considerably lower.The fact that protypicality is a universal phenomenon of our minds is suggested not only by the consistency of the answers, but also by the fact that the findings are very similar to the results of the original experiment by Rosch, as summarised by Aitchison (1987, p. 53) On the bird list, sparrow, canary, blackbird, dove and lark all came out high. Parrot, pheasant, albatross, toucan, and owl were somewhat lower. Flamingo, duck and peacock were lower still. Ostrich, emu and penguin came out more than ha lf-way down the seven-point rating, while last of all came bat, which probably shouldnt be regarded as a bird at all. Although the present research did not investigate the prototypicality of all items on the original list, the order of the items of my own study are in line with the findings of Rosch.4.2. The definition of the categoriesAccording to the results, the definitions of categories are based on the same factors as the prototypes. Categories differ concerning whether they are formed on the basis of appearance, usage or frequency, and whether identification criteria or stored knowledge are dominant in forming the category.Table 2. The scores of the elements according to the number of their appearance in the definitions of the categories.AppearanceUsage / functionFrequencyExperienceLearnt knowledgeFurniture8240219Bird192002021Vehicle61611518Fruit171801919Woman5701021The definitions of the categories were coded into numerical data the definitions were broken down into component s of subject matter (based on the factors that determine prototypes, see section 2.2), and then the different components were sort according to whether they referred to appearance or property, usage or function, or the frequency of encountering the given category. It was also decided whether the participant used knowledge domain experience or learnt knowledge to formulate a definition.The results reveal that the dominance of the certain aspects of meaning in creating a definition varies from category to category. The definition of article of furniture is based on usage and function (e.g. an object with functions of decorating and personal use) and world experience. In the case of the category of bird, appearance (e.g. has wings) and function (i.e. what it does, for instance unremarkably capable of flying), and experience (e.g. it can sing) and learnt knowledge (e.g. a type of vertebrates that reproduces with nut play an equal role. Vehicle is outlined dominantly according to it s usage (e.g. used for the transportation of people), but experience and knowledge are both important bases of the definition. The definitions of fruit use all four aspects equally. Finally, the category of woman is be negatively in a lot of cases (e.g. the opposite of man), and almost only on the basis of learnt knowledge (e.g. has XX chromosomes and capable of giving birth). It is important to note that the frequency of encountering the category, which is an important factor in judging the typicality of an instance, does not play a role in defining a concept.4.3. Prototype theory in the light of the resultsThe results imply that the theoretical Prototype Theory and the general definitions of categories work similarly in practice.(1) Are prototypes and definitions formed similarly or differently?According to the results, the same factors (as outlined by Rosch (1978, see section 2.2.) play a role in formulating prototypes with regards to a category and in formulating a definition of the category. The mental operations that underlie the forming of stereotypes play a role in forming the definitions, although the definitions do not cover every prototypical instance.(2) What is the role of learnt knowledge in creating the prototypes and definitions?Based on the results of the study, stored knowledge determines prototypicality in the case of some categories. Attributes that we attach to the objects through our learnt knowledge of the world seem to override our world experience especially in the case of the definitions, which are most often formulated on the basis of learnt knowledge.(3) Do cultural factors play a role in creating prototypes and definitions?Cultural factors play a role in the judgement on prototypicality and creating definitions. Cultural stereotypes are at work in the case of the category of woman. Judging the prototypicality of the given social roles, cultural stereotypes and approach patterns determined the answers. The definition of the cate gory of woman was defined on the basis of both biological sex and the social convention of gender.5. ConclusionThe present small-scale empirical study investigated the similarities and differences of the functioning of Prototype Theory and definitions. The results imply that the theoretical approach of Prototype Theory and the everyday definitions of categories work similarly in the practice, as the same basic factors, learnt knowledge and cultural aspects underlie the mental representations of prototypes and categories.6. ReferencesAitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental lexicon. Cambridge, MA Basil Blackwell.Cook, G. (1997). Key concepts in ELT Schemas. ELT Journal, 51(1), 86.Field, J. (2003). Psycholinguistics A resource script for students. New York Routledge.Longman lexicon of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). (2003). Harlow Pearson ESL.Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. Cambridge Cambridge Uni versity Press.Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104, 192-233.Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorisation. In Rosch, E., Loyd, B. B. (Eds.). apprehension and categorisation (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.