DOCSLIB.ORG

The Concept of the Prototype Theory •

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Concept of the Prototype Theory • The Concept of the Prototype Theory Eleanor ( )Rosch Definitional ( )theory of concepts Abstract: Different theories are used in the analysis of meaning. One of these theories is the Prototype Theory. It is a cognitive, semantic theory and it is considered a model of correcting the contextual meaning according to the structural and mental construction. Also, this theory is interested in the intellectual construction of a word. Eleanor Rosch was the first to tackle this theory in the mid- 1970s. This theory is about building prototypes of words. The theory is dependent on the mental representations compatible with the attributes of concept. In other words, every concept is represented by a prototype that includes the features of this concept. Some of these features are basic and some are marginal. This theory has come into existence to avoid the deficiencies the definitional theory of concepts suffered from. According of this theory, the concept is a set of features that are essential and necessary. The Conceptual Components of Prototype Theory in Mohammed Nihad: Translating Process )David Crystal: Language and Languages ,2991( David Crystal: Language and ,1002( )Languages )James R. Hurford and others: Semantics( )John R. Taylor: Prototype Theory( Ignasi Navarro I Ferrando: A Cognitive Semantics )Analysis of the Lexical Units at, on and in in English )frequency( )G. Lakoff( )G. Kleiber( Jesse J. Prinz: Regaining Composure: A Defense of ( )Prototype Compositionality Holger Diessel: Language and Cognition I ( Categorization ،( ص .9 )Kleiber( )F. Rastier( )Rosh( )E. Heider( )Standard Version( )Rosh( )Horizontal Dimension( عبارات مقومات دﻻلية )Rosh( D. ( )Dubois )Dubois( )Moeschler ؛( )Rosh( )Boznar ( John R. Taylor: Linguistic Categorization Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (central members) )marginal members( Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics Dirk Geeraerts: Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Cognition and Pragmatics Readings Dominiek Sandra and others Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics L.A.Aadeh: A Note on Prototype Theory and Fuzzy Sets )degree of membership( )similarity( )matching principle ( )Cognitive reference point( )Experiential( )Lakoff( تبد ُّ ًلُّ َألُّ )gestalt properties( )atomisme( )Gestalt( )theory of form( )Kurt Goldstein( )structure of organisme( « » )Wittgenstein( )Categorization( أوُّ ًلُّ Aazad Hasan Fatah: A Cognitive Grammar Anlysis of Suffixes in English and Kurdish Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Introduction ( )to Cognitive Linguistics « )categorical( « )semantics network( Timothy T. Rogers and James L. McClelland: Semantic ( )Cognition (Vyvyan Evans and an Introduction( Melanie Green: Cognitive Linguistics an ( )Lakoff( « )Rosh( (Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green: Introduction Cognitive Linguistics (Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green: an Introduction( Cognitive Linguistics Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Introduction ( )to Cognitive Linguistics )Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics( (Linguistic Categorization) )Labov( )Rosh( )componential analysis( )membership( )representivity( )Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics( Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An ( )Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (asymmetry( )Rosh( )Rosh( )Labov( )radial category structure) Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Introduction ( )to Cognitive Linguistics فئة ب فئة أ اﻻتجاه إلى محيط فئة ج الدائرة يمثل عناصر أقل تمثيﻻ للفئة (centrality) (family resemblance) )Family Resemblances( )Geeraerts( )Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics( Dirk Geeraerts: Cognitive Linguistics: Basic )Readins) )Wittgenstein( (Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Dirk ( )Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics )Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics )Similarity( )Jean Aitchison: Understand Linguistics( إلُّ Lakoff John Jung Park: Prototypes, Exemplars, and Theoretical )& Applied Ethics) )Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics( Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An Introduction ( James A. Hampton: ( )to Cognitive Linguistics )Testing the Prototype of Concepts )Typical features( )cue validity( )cue validity( )Conditional probability( )Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics( )John R. Taylor: Prototype Theory( (Timothy T. Rogers and James L. McClelland: Semantic Cognition) :)Vertical Dimension( )Brown( )inclusion( )Rosh( )John R. Taylor: Linguistic Categorization( John R. Prototypes in Cognitive Linguistics( Fengjuan Zhang: Prototype Theory )Taylor: )and the Categorization of the English Tense System) )John R. Taylor: Prototype Theory( 1 )John R. Taylor: Linguistic Categorization( 2 Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An ( )Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics )Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics( )Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green: ، an Introduction) Cognitive Linguistics )Rosh( )party of( - - - - - )Familiarity and Frequency ( )D. Dubois( )Givon( )Objective and Subjective( - - 1 )artefact( - 2 )object fabricate( )occurrence( (Brachyura ) )Extended Version( )Lakoff( )Wittgenstein( )Wittgenstein( Dugald ( )Stewaet )T.Givon( 1 )T.Givon( 2 - - - )G. Lakoff( 2 1 )G. Kleiber( )effects prototypical( 1 )Kleiber( 2 )Wittgenstein( )Rosh( )Rosh( Radial ( Fuzzy, Polysemy and Networks )T.Givon( )Stewaet( )Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics( )Claudia Brugman( )over( (Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics )George Lakoff( (Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics )Lakoff( « )graphes( )Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics( Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jorg Schmid: An ( Dirk ( )Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics )Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics )Dirk Geeraerts: Theories of Lexical Semantics( )mental models( )Jean Aitchison: Understand Linguistics( - - - - - - Rosh - - http://uqu.edu.sa/files2/tiny_mce/plugins/fil emanager/files/4290561/53/zz10.pdf 1- Aazad Hasan Fatah: A Cognitive Grammar Anlysis of Suffixes in English and Kurdish, Supervised by: Zeki Hamawand university of sulaimani, 2012. 2- Fengjuan Zhang: Prototype Theory and the Categorization of the English Tense System, The linguistics Journal, Soochow University, China, Vol. (5), 2011. 3- Holger Diessel: Language and Cognition I Categorization. http://www.personal.uni- jena.de/~x4diho/Script.Language%20and%20Co gnition%201.pdf 4- Ignasi Navarro I Ferrando: A Cognitive Semantics Analysis of the Lexical Units at, on and in in English, supervised: Carlos Hernández Sacristán and José Luis Otal Campo, University of Jaume I, 1998. 5- James A. Hampton: Testing the Prototype of Concepts, Journal of Memory and Language, No (34), 1995, (Pp 686-708). 6- Jesse J. Prinz : Regaining Composure: A Defense of Prototype Compositionality , Oxford University Press, 2008. http://subcortex.com/RegainingCompo surePrinz.pdf 7- John Jung Park: Prototypes, Exemplars, and Theoretical & Applied Ethics, Neuroethics Original Paper, Duke University 2011. 8- John R. Taylor: a. Prototype Theory, New Zealand, 2009. https://www.academia.edu/1902195/Prot otype_theory b. Prototypes in Cognitive Liguistics,2008. http://04244422442229/?nxdomain=http 3%A4%F4%Fs3.amazonaws.com4%Faca demia.edu.documents4%F4%49290609F Taylor_4992_Prototypes_in_Cognitive_Ling uistics- libre.pdf3%FAWSAccessKeyId3%DAKIAJ56 TQJRTWSMTNPEA46%Expires3%D 46%2443929293Signature3%D2dGOtJjg cFEk2Fb2FB454%FOdCJ4Kqc453%D&msg ID2=23&AddInType=4&PlatformInfo=DNSA &Version=32925&blockedDomain= 9- L.A.Aadeh: A Note on Prototype Theory and Fuzzy Sets, , Journal Cognition, University of California, Berkeley, No 12, 1982, (Pp 291- 297). 10-Mohammed Nihad Ahmed : The Conceptual Components of Prototype Theory in Translating Process, University of Mosul, J. Edu. Sci., Vol. (18), No. (2) , 2011 (Pp 15-28). 1. David Crystal: 2. Language and Languages, Blackwell publishers, 1st Edi, 1992. 3. Language and Languages, Blackwell publishers, 1st Edi, 2003. 4. Dirk Geeraerts: 5. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, Cambridge Univ Press, 2006. 6. Theories of Lexical Semantics, Oxford Univ Press, 2010. 7. Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman and JefVerschueren: Cognition and Pragmatics, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2009. 8. Friedrich Ungerer and Hans- Jörg Schmid: An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2st Edi, 2006. 9. James R. Hurford, Brendan Heasley and Michael B. Smith: Semantics, Cambridge Univ Press, 2st Edi, 2007. 10. Jean Aitchison: Understand Linguistics, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 7st Edi, 2010. 11. John R. Taylor: Linguistic Categorization, Prototype in Linguistic Theory, Oxford Univ Press, 2st Edi, 1995. 12. Sebastian Löbner: Understanding Semantics, Oxford Univ Press, 1st Edi, 2002. 13. Timothy T. Rogers and James L. McClelland: Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach, Cambridge Univ Press, 2003. 14. Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green: Cognitive Linguistics an Introduction, Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2006. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantic Computing
    SEMANTIC COMPUTING Lecture 7: Introduction to Distributional and Distributed Semantics Dagmar Gromann International Center For Computational Logic TU Dresden, 30 November 2018 Overview • Distributional Semantics • Distributed Semantics – Word Embeddings Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 2 Distributional Semantics Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 3 Distributional Semantics Definition • meaning of a word is the set of contexts in which it occurs • no other information is used than the corpus-derived information about word distribution in contexts (co-occurrence information of words) • semantic similarity can be inferred from proximity in contexts • At the very core: Distributional Hypothesis Distributional Hypothesis “similarity of meaning correlates with similarity of distribution” - Harris Z. S. (1954) “Distributional structure". Word, Vol. 10, No. 2-3, pp. 146-162 meaning = use = distribution in context => semantic distance Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 4 Remember Lecture 1? Types of Word Meaning • Encyclopaedic meaning: words provide access to a large inventory of structured knowledge (world knowledge) • Denotational meaning: reference of a word to object/concept or its “dictionary definition” (signifier <-> signified) • Connotative meaning: word meaning is understood by its cultural or emotional association (positive, negative, neutral conntation; e.g. “She’s a dragon” in Chinese and English) • Conceptual meaning: word meaning is associated with the mental concepts it gives access to (e.g. prototype theory) • Distributional meaning: “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” (J.R. Firth 1957: 11) John Rupert Firth (1957). "A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955." In Special Volume of the Philological Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 5 Distributional Hypothesis in Practice Study by McDonald and Ramscar (2001): • The man poured from a balack into a handleless cup.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformer Networks of Human Conceptual Knowledge Sudeep Bhatia and Russell Richie University of Pennsylvania March 1, 2021 Se
    TRANSFORMER NETWORKS OF CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE 1 Transformer Networks of Human Conceptual Knowledge Sudeep Bhatia and Russell Richie University of Pennsylvania March 1, 2021 Send correspondence to Sudeep Bhatia, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Email: [email protected]. Funding was received from the National Science Foundation grant SES-1847794. TRANSFORMER NETWORKS OF CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE 2 Abstract We present a computational model capable of simulating aspects of human knowledge for thousands of real-world concepts. Our approach involves fine-tuning a transformer network for natural language processing on participant-generated feature norms. We show that such a model can successfully extrapolate from its training dataset, and predict human knowledge for novel concepts and features. We also apply our model to stimuli from twenty-three previous experiments in semantic cognition research, and show that it reproduces fifteen classic findings involving semantic verification, concept typicality, feature distribution, and semantic similarity. We interpret these results using established properties of classic connectionist networks. The success of our approach shows how the combination of natural language data and psychological data can be used to build cognitive models with rich world knowledge. Such models can be used in the service of new psychological applications, such as the cognitive process modeling of naturalistic semantic verification and knowledge retrieval, as well as the modeling of real-world categorization, decision making, and reasoning. Keywords: Conceptual knowledge; Semantic cognition; Distributional semantics; Connectionist modeling; Transformer networks TRANSFORMER NETWORKS OF CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE 3 Introduction Knowledge of concepts and their features is one of the fundamental topics of inquiry in cognitive science (Murphy, 2004; Rips et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Theory and Emotion Semantic Change Aotao Xu ([email protected]) Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
    Prototype theory and emotion semantic change Aotao Xu ([email protected]) Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Jennifer Stellar ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Yang Xu ([email protected]) Department of Computer Science, Cognitive Science Program, University of Toronto Abstract provided evidence for this prototype view using a variety An elaborate repertoire of emotions is one feature that dis- of stimuli ranging from emotion words (Storm & Storm, tinguishes humans from animals. Language offers a critical 1987), videos (Cowen & Keltner, 2017), and facial expres- form of emotion expression. However, it is unclear whether sions (Russell & Bullock, 1986; Ekman, 1992). Prototype the meaning of an emotion word remains stable, and what fac- tors may underlie changes in emotion meaning. We hypothe- theory provides a synchronic account of the mental represen- size that emotion word meanings have changed over time and tation of emotion terms, but how this view extends or relates that the prototypicality of an emotion term drives this change to the diachronic development of emotion words is an open beyond general factors such as word frequency. We develop a vector-space representation of emotion and show that this problem that forms the basis of our inquiry. model replicates empirical findings on prototypicality judg- ments and basic categories of emotion. We provide evidence Theories of semantic change that more prototypical emotion words have undergone less change in meaning than peripheral emotion words over the past Our work also draws on an independent line of research in century, and that this trend holds within each family of emo- historical semantic change.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bayesian Approach to 'Overinformative' Referring Expressions
    RUNNING HEAD: USEFULLY REDUNDANT REFERRING EXPRESSIONS 1 When redundancy is useful: A Bayesian approach to `overinformative' referring expressions Judith Degen•, Robert X.D. Hawkins•, Caroline Graf., Elisa Kreiss• and Noah D. Goodman• •Stanford University .Freie Universit¨atBerlin December 11, 2019 Author note: The earliest precursor of this work (the core idea of a continuous semantics RSA model and Exp. 1) was presented as a talk at the RefNet Round Table Event in 2016 and at AMLaP 2016. Exp. 2 and the corresponding model were presented as a talk at the CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing in 2017 and as a poster at the Experimental Pragmatics (XPrag) Conference in 2017. An earlier version of Exp. 3 and an earlier version of the corresponding model appeared in the Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. All experiments and models have been presented by the first author in various invited talks at workshops and colloquia in Linguistics, Psychology, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science arXiv:1903.08237v3 [cs.CL] 10 Dec 2019 since 2016. We are grateful to many audiences and individuals for discussions that have made this paper better, in particular Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Herb Clark, Michael Franke, Gerhard J¨ager,Florian Jaeger, Emiel Krahmer, Timo Roettger, Paula Rubio-Fern´andez,Greg Scontras, Mike Tanenhaus, and our anonymous reviewers; audiences at the RefNet Round Table Event 2015, CogSci 2016, AMLaP 2016, CUNY 2017, XPrag 2017, the UC Davis Perception, Cognition, and Cognitive Neuroscience Brown Bag, the Bay Area Philosophy of Science Group, the IMBS Quantitative Approaches to Language Workshop 2018; and audiences at colloquium talks given by the first author at Berkeley Psychology, CMU Philosophy, Dartmouth Linguistics, McGill Linguistics, OSU Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics, T¨ubingenLinguistics, and UC Davis Linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Description of Objects in Images Based on Prototype Theory
    Semantic Description of Objects in Images Based on Prototype Theory Omar Vidal Pino, Erickson R. Nascimento, and Mario F. M. Campos Department of Computer Science Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Email: fovidalp, erickson, [email protected] Abstract—This research aims to build a model for the semantic basic conceptual components of the meaning of any lexical description of objects based on visual features extracted from item [9], according to Rosch [10], the representation of seman- images. We introduce a novel semantic description approach in- tic meaning is related to the category prototype, particularly spired by the Prototype Theory. Inspired by the human approach used to represent categories, we propose a novel Computational to those categories naming natural objects. In her seminal Prototype Model (CPM) that encodes and stores the object’s work [10], Rosch introduced the concept of semantic prototype image category’s central semantic meaning: the semantic proto- and presented a deep analysis of the semantic structure in type. Our CPM model represents and constructs the semantic the meaning of words. Although state-of-the-art methods have prototypes of object categories using Convolutional Neural Net- achieved surprising results, there are still many challenges to works (CNN). The proposed Prototype-based Description Model uses the CPM model to describe an object highlighting its most simulate the discriminative and abstraction power of human distinctive features within the category. Our Global Semantic semantic memory to represent the semantics. Descriptor (GSDP) builds discriminative, low-dimensional, and In this research1, we rely on cognitive semantic studies semantically interpretable signatures that encode the objects’ related to the Prototype Theory [10]–[12] for modeling the semantic information using the constructed semantic prototypes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bing Ran Phd Dissertation.Pdf (2.083Mb)
    Meaning Construction: Cognitive Processes of Conceptual Interaction by Bing Ran A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Sciences Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 © Bing Ran 2007 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. Bing Ran ii ABSTRACT This thesis proposes a theoretical framework explaining cognitive processes of meaning construction through conceptual interactions. It was noted that while the nine models or theories (Fuzzy Sets, Selective Modification model, Amalgam theory, Concept Specialization model, Composite Prototype Model, Dual-Process model, Constraint model, CARIN model, and Coherence Theory) in literature on conceptual combination offered insights on the problem of how people understand conceptual combinations, most of them assumed a schematic representation of our knowledge of concepts. However, it is possible that our minds represent knowledge in less structured ways and that schematic structure may not necessarily play a role in making sense of conceptual combinations. In this thesis, I attempted to make fewer assumptions about how knowledge is represented to explain the cognitive processes of conceptual combinations. I assume that concepts are related to other concepts, and knowledge can be represented
    [Show full text]
  • Unsupervised Extraction of Semantic Relations Using Discourse Information Juliette Conrath
    Unsupervised extraction of semantic relations using discourse information Juliette Conrath To cite this version: Juliette Conrath. Unsupervised extraction of semantic relations using discourse information. Artificial Intelligence [cs.AI]. Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse III, 2015. English. NNT : 2015TOU30202. tel-01373965 HAL Id: tel-01373965 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01373965 Submitted on 29 Sep 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈSETHÈSE En vue de l’obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE Présentée et soutenue le 14/12/2015 par : Juliette Conrath Unsupervised extraction of semantic relations using discourse information Directeurs de Thèse : Nicholas Asher Philippe Muller Stergos Afantenos Directeur de Recherche Maître de Conférences Maître de Conférences IRIT-CNRS Université Paul Sabatier Université Paul Sabatier Rapporteurs : Johan Bos James Pustejovsky Professeur d’Université Professeur d’Université Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Brandeis University Examinateur : Pascal Denis Chargé de Recherche INRIA Lille École doctorale et spécialité : MITT ; Domaine STIC : Intelligence Artificielle Unité de Recherche : Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT - UMR 5505) Abstract Natural language understanding often relies on common-sense reasoning, for which knowl- edge about semantic relations, especially between verbal predicates, may be required.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Theory and the Meaning of Verbs, With
    PROTOTYPE THEORY AND THE MEANING OF VERBS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MODERN GREEK VERBS OF MOTION by Eleni Antonopoulou A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1987 ProQuest Number: 10731450 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731450 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT The present study tests the applicability of Prototype theory, selected among competing theoretical frameworks, to a lexical semantic analysis of verbs, with particular reference to the previously uncharted domain of Modern Greek verbs of motion. A number of the characteristics which Prototype theory established in connection with certain types of nouns are demonstrated to pertainto verbs: their meaning is not a matter of necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather a matter of gradation; their attributes combine in non-arbitrary ways to form categories with fuzzy boundaries the members of which are non-equivalent. Two categorizations of motion verbs according to 'major classificatory properties' are discussed at length.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Theory
    PROTOTYPE THEORY CATEGORIZATION Prototype prototype of a predicate is an object held to be very typical of the kind of object which can be referred to by an expression containing the predicate prototype- most typical member of a category e.g. prototype of the predicate man:man of medium height and average built, btw. 30 and 50 years old with no distinctive features or defects (in certain parts of the world) a dwarf or a muscular body-builder cannot be a prototype of the predicate man Categorization E. Rosch- psychologist, one of the founders of c. semantics, introduced the idea of a PROTOTYPE crucial research in understanding categories CATEGORY- one knowledge structure contrast btw. classical and prototypical c. classical c.-Aristotle, applicable to Trier’s semantic field theory Aristotelian categories 1. categories are defined in terms of a conjunction of necessary and sufficient features implies that m. can be absolutely determined e.g. two necessary and sufficient features for “man”: two- footed, animal law of contradiciton - an entity cannot both be and not be (both possess a feature and not possess it) law of the excluded middle – an entity must either be or not be, either possess a category or not possess it (either belong to a category or not) 2. features by which we define membership are binary f.are a matter of all or nothing; f. is either involved in the definition of a c. or it is not; an entity either possesses a f. or it doesn’t. f. is either present or absent and can take on only one of two values: [+] or [-] 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Theory and Compositionality
    COGNITION ELSEVIER Cognition 57 (t995) 129 191 Prototype theory and compositionality Hans Kamp ~'* Barbara Partee L' ~'lnstitut f iJr Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universitiit Stuttgart, Azenbergstrasse 12, D 70174 Stuttgart, Germany bDepartment of Linguistics and Department of Philosophy, Box 37130, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003-7130, USA Received August 31, 1993, final version accepted December 6, 1994 Abstract Osherson and Smith (1981, Cognition, 11,237-262) discuss a number of problems which arise for a prototype-based account of the meanings of simple and complex concepts. Assuming that concept combination in such a theory is to be analyzed in terms of fuzzy logic, they show that some complex concepts inevitably get assigned the wrong meanings. In the present paper we argue that many of the problems O&S discovered are due to difficulties that are intrinsic to fuzzy set theory, and that most of them disappear when fuzzy logic is replaced by supervaluation theory. However, even after this replacement one of O&S's central problems remains: the theory still predicts that the degree to which an object is an instance of, say, "striped apple" must be less than or equal to both the degree to which it is an instance of "striped" and the degree to which it is an instance of "apple", but this constraint conflicts with O&S's experimental results. The second part of the paper explores ways of solving this and related problems. This leads us to suggest a number of distinctions and principles concerning how prototypicality and other mechanisms interact and which seem important for semantics generally.
    [Show full text]
  • Research on the Categorization Prototype Theory Based on the Cognitive Linguistics
    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 179 5th International Education, Economics, Social Science, Arts, Sports and Management Engineering Conference (IEESASM 2017) Research on the Categorization Prototype Theory Based on the Cognitive Linguistics Zhao Huiyan Anshan Normal University, Anshan, Liaoning P.R. China 114007 [email protected] Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics, Prototype Theory, Categorization Abstract: As all we know, Cognitive linguistics is a new discipline and it is attracting the various linguists’ attention in recent years. It is based on the cognitive method of psychology and brings the problems in linguistics into new explanation. In this paper, the typical theory of categorization of cognitive psychology is applied to linguistics, and some aspects of syntax, lexicology, pragmatics and semantics in linguistics are expounded. Although the classification itself is an effective way of organizing knowledge, the category can also have further upper and lower off cuts and it is very useful in our everyday life. 1. Introduction A thing and its similar members (such as apples) can constitute a category, a class of things (such as movement) and its inclusion can constitute a category. The term category is a widely used and ambiguous term in cognitive linguistics. So we divide the categories of objects and things into one category because we feel that they are connected to some extent. The ability of this sorting enables us to be in contact with the surrounding environment without being confused by its complexity and diversity. "First, the categorization of objects can reduce the complexity of the surrounding environment. Scientists have developed the world has seven million kinds of distinguishable colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Latent Semantic Analysis As Classifiers
    COMPARING LATENT DIRICHLET ALLOCATION AND LATENT SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AS CLASSIFIERS Leticia H. Anaya, B.S., M.S. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2011 APPROVED: Nicholas Evangelopoulos, Major Professor Shailesh Kulkarni, Committee Member Robert Pavur, Committee Member Dan Peak, Committee Member Nourredine Boubekri, Committee Member Mary C. Jones, Chair of the Department of Information Technology and Decision Sciences Finley Graves, Dean of College of Business James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Anaya, Leticia H. Comparing Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Latent Semantic Analysis as Classifiers. Doctor of Philosophy (Management Science), December 2011, 226 pp., 40 tables, 23 illustrations, references, 72 titles. In the Information Age, a proliferation of unstructured text electronic documents exists. Processing these documents by humans is a daunting task as humans have limited cognitive abilities for processing large volumes of documents that can often be extremely lengthy. To address this problem, text data computer algorithms are being developed. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) are two text data computer algorithms that have received much attention individually in the text data literature for topic extraction studies but not for document classification nor for comparison studies. Since classification is considered an important human function and has been studied in the areas of cognitive science and information
    [Show full text]