Johnson Prototype Theory

7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 1/13

I ntroducti on

PROTOTYPE THEORY, COGNTIVE LINGUSTICS AND PEDAGOGCAL GRAMMAR

Thi s paper begi ns froma general theory of natural . categori es,developed i n the 1970' s by El eanor Rosch and her col l eagues (Rosch et al ,1976) and referred to here as prototype theory . Thi s theory has beenappl i ed to l i ngui sti c categori es by George Lakoff (1982) under the heading' cogni ti ve l i ngui sti cs' and can be shown to be consistent wth theconcl usi ons of a number of other 20th century l i ngui sts who have addressedsemanti c rather than purel y formal aspects of l anguage . I t i s suggested

that prototype theory offers a pri nci pl ed approach to the exempl i f i cati on

of form- meaning rel ati onshi ps wthi n l anguage and to the devel opment ofl anguage teachi ng exerci ses which focus upon speci f i c aspects of the

l anguage systemand whi ch offer ' enri ched' i nput to the ' Language

Acqui si ti on Devi ce' ; i . e . i t offers a pri nci pl ed basi s for the devel opment

and appl i cati on of pedagogical grammars .

Prototype Theory

R. K J ohnson

Facul ty of Educati on

Uni versi ty of Hong Kong

Rosch et al . offer a theory of the ways i n which human beings and

other organi sm deal cogni ti vel y wth thei r percepti ons of the worl d

' out there' .

"The worl d consi sts of a vi rtual l y i nfi ni te number of

di scrimnabl y di f ferent stimul i . One of the most basi c

functi ons of al l organi sm i s the cutti ng up of the

envi ronment i nto cl assi f i cati ons by which non-i denti cal

stimul i can be treated as equi val ent . " (Rosch et al . ,

1976: 383)

They cl aimthat thi s process i s pri nci pl ed and depends on the

' real -worl d attri butes' of what i s percei ved, and al so upon the

characteri sti cs of the perceptual . apparatus i tsel f ( i . e . We can onl y

categori se on the basi s of what we can percei ve and, al l thi ngs being equal ,

that which i s more easi l y percei ved wl l be of greater signi f i cance to t he

categori sati on process . )

Rosch and Mervis (1975) have shown "that the more an i temi s j udged

to be prototypi cal of a category, the more attri butes i t has i n common w t h

members of contrasti ng categori es" (Rosch et al . , 1976: 433) .

At the same time however, Rosch et al . ( 1 . 976 : 384) poi nt out that :

"I t i s to the organi sms advantage not to di fferenti ate

one stimul us f romothers when that di f ferenti ati on i s

i rrel evant for the purposes i n har i d . "

There are then two basic cogni ti ve pri nci pl es operati ng : the f i rst

i s to achi eve maximumdi fferenti ati on, wth the prototypi cal i nstance of



a category bei ng that which di sti ngui shes i t most cl earl y fromal l other

categori es . The second i s to avoi d cogni ti ve overl oad, whi ch woul d resul t

fromover di f ferenti ati ng and a consequent l oss i n fl exi bi l i ty i n groupi ng

those thi ngs which share important characteri sti cs, whi l st bei ng i n other

respects unl i ke .

The pri nci pl e of di f ferenti ati on has been central to l i ngui sti ctheory since de Saussure, who maintained that the l anguage system i s one

i n which "tout se ti ent" and i n which "11 n' y a que des di fferences"

(de Saussure 1953 :166) . The siml ari ty between de Saussure' s theory of

l anguage system and the prototype theory of natural categori sati on i swel l i l l ustrated by de Saussure' s account of the ' value' of l i ngui sti c

elements, whi ch I take to mean the cogni ti ve or meani ng val ue expressed

by a l i ngui sti c form These val ues are defi ned . . . . .

" . . . non pas posi ti vement par l eur contenu, mai s

negati vement par l eurs rapports avec l es autres

term du systeme . Leur pl us exact characteri sti que

est d' etre ce que l es autres ne sont pas . " (op . ci t . )

The noti on of negati ve defi ni ti on i s a di ff i cul t one to work wth,

but the pri nci pl e of i denti f i cati on through contrast has been central to

the synchroni c descri pti on of l anguage throughout the 20th century,

regardl ess of the parti cul ar school of l i ngui sti cs i nvol ved

Lakoff (1982) summari ses Rosch' s work i n cogni ti ve psychology and

i ts appl i cati on to cogni ti ve l i ngui sti cs as encompassi ng enti ti es - col ours,

events, acti ons, percei ved spati al rel ati ons, causati on, social i nsti tuti ons,

syntacti c enti ti es (nouns, verbs, subj ects, grammati cal constructi ons)

phonol ogi cal enti ti es, mental images, etc . "

Lakoff (1982: 44) notes further :

"Thi s research has produced overwhelmng support for

prototype theory, or more properl y for the need to

devel op further a theory of natural categori sati on

al ong the l i nes of Rosch' s resul ts . "

I n rel ati on to each of the above areas of research, L! i kof f di scusses

i nstances of prototypi cal category membershi p and boundary phenomena

where category membershi p i s unpredi ctabl e and dependent l argel y upon

context and communi cati ve purpose .

Otherl i ngui sts have tackl ed the same phenomena and have come to

siml ar concl usi ons . J . R. Ross (quoti ng Ll oyd Anderson) formul ated the

questi on as fol l ows :

"One shoul d not ask ' I s the phenomenon i n questi on di screte or non-

di screte?' but rather ' Howdi screte i s the phenomenon?' " (Ross 1974: 121)

and adopted the term ' squi sh' i n papers on boundary phenomena amongst

l i ngui sti c categori es (Ross 1972, 1973) .

W Labov i n experimental studi es conducted over a ten year peri od,

focussed l i ke Ross upon boundary phenomena . He concl uded (1973: 143) :

"I nstead of taki ng as probl emati cal the exi stence of the

categori es, we can turn to the nature of the boundari esbetween them As l i ngui sti cs then becomes a formof



boundary theory rather than a category theory, we di scover

that not al l l i ngui sti c materi al f i ts the categori cal

vi ew there i s greater or l esser success i n imposi ng

categori es upon the conti nuous substratumof real i ty. "

The "greater or l esser success i n imposi ng categori es" i s i nterpreted

here i n term of degrees of prototypi cal i ty as def i ned by Rosch . Rosch' sposi ti on i s i ndeed the reverse of Labov' s . Where Labov chooses boundary

theory as a way of escapi ng f romthe probl em associ ated wth categori -

sati on, Rosch proposes an approach which al l ows the cateory to be the

mai n focus of attenti on whi l e at the sane time accounti ng for boundary

phenomena .

I n addi ti on to the experimental studi es he di scusses, Lakof f suggests

that the psychol ogi cal val i di ty of prototype theory recei ves support from

the exi stence of l i ngui sti c term whi ch appear to i ndi cate degree ofprototypi cal i ty . He gi ves ' sort of and ' ki ndof as exampl es of

expressi ons which i ndi cate non-representati ve members of a category, whi l e

such term as ' par exeel Zenee' i ndi cate prototypi cal i ty (1982 : 44) ;

Lakof f al so quotes fromKay' s (1979) anal ysi s of ' ZooseLy speaki ng' and

' strictl y speaking' , amongst other l i ngui sti c ' hedges' . He concl udes :

"I n short, i f words can fi t the worl d, they can fi t i t

ei ther stri ctl y or l oosel y, and the hedges stri etZy

speaking and l oosel y speaking i ndi cate hownarrowy or

broadl y one shoul d construe the f i t . "

Prototype theory can be extended beyond l exi cal and grammati cal

l evel s to di scourse and textual l evel s of anal ysi s . Brown and Yul e ( 1984)

summari se much of the recent l i terature on ' story ,grammrs' , ' f rams' ,

' schema' , ' scri pts' , ' scenari os' and ' schemata' . These noti ons l i ke the

work of Sacks and others on turn-taki ng, appear to suggest that al l .' grammars of expectancy' are based upon what Lakoff , borrowng f rom

C. Fi l lmore, cal l s I deal i sed Cogni ti ve Model s (1982 : 48) and which are

essenti al l y prototypi cal i nformati onal i nteracti ve structures as opposed

to grammati cal or l exi cal enti ti es . However, whi l e noti ng that the

appl i cati on of the theory may be wder, thi s paper restri cts the di scussion

to the area tradi ti onal l y associ ated wth pedagogi cal grammars .

Prototype theory therefore seem to sui t the needs of some l i ngui sts

very wel l . I t provides a theoreti cal f ramework wthi n whi ch i t i s

possibl e to sol ve at l east some of the probl em associated wth addi ng

the semanti c dimensi on to l i ngui sti c i nvesti gati on. The fact that a

theory i s rel evant to l i ngui sti c theory does not of course make i t

necessari l y rel evant to l anguage teachi ng and l earni ng The di f ferences

between these two enterpri ses, i n term of parti cipants and goal s, product

and process, have been emphasi sed f requentl y and j udi ci ousl y over the

l ast twenty years . Appl i ed Li ngui sti cs has turned i ncreasingl y towards

Psychol i ngui sti cs and the processes of l anguage acqui si ti on for i nspi rati on

and for theoreti cal support . I t i s i nteresti ng therefore to note that

prototype theory has al so been extended to thi s area.

I n fi rst l anguage acqui si ti on studi es, the probl em i n determni ng

a chi l d' s meani ng are wel l -known, i f too f requentl y i gnored . The attemt

to i ntroduce noti ons of prototypi cal i ty i n rel ati on to an earl y stage of

l anguage devel opment mght therefore seemoverambi ti ous . Nevertheless,

one study at l east, by Labov and Labov, (1974) reported by C ark( 1979)

suggests that the chi l d' s l exi con, however exoti c i t may appear i n i ts

- 14 -



earl i est stage of development, can be i nterpreted i n term of proto-

typi cal i ty, or, fromthe standpoi nt of Labov' s i nterest i n boundary

theory, degrees of non-prototypi cal i ty .

I n thi s study Labov and Labov recorded the over-extensi ons of the

word ' cat' (one of two words i n the chi l d' s total repertoi re) and cl ai med

to have i denti f i ed a set of' core'

features.

Animal s fi tt i ngany

or al lof these core features were cal l ed ' cat' . However, the more core features

were i nvol ved, the more confi dent the chi l d appeared to be i n her use ofthe word Animal s wth none of the cri teri on features were never named

' cat' .

I n studi es rel ati ng to second l anguage acqui si ti on i n adul ts, the

noti on of prototypi cal i ty i s more managabl e, since i t i s possibl e to

assume a ful l y devel oped mother tongue l anguage systemwhich i s mappedonto and real i ses a speaker' s cogni ti ve competence .

I n thi s context, recent di scussi ons of transfer fromthe fi rst

l anguage to the second l anguage ( e . g Gass and Sel i nker, 1983) suggest

strongl y that prototype theory and theori es of markedness and ofuni versal i ty i n l anguage have much i n common . S . Gass (1984) reviews theevi dence froma number of studi es of transfer, i n parti cul ar_ her own and

those conducted wth J . Ard, those by E . Kel l erman (1979, 1983) and

by W Rutherford (1982, 1983) . Gass proposes that there are ' core'

meani ngs, whi ch I take to be equi val ent to the prototypi cal categori es

di scussed above, and concl udes that :

" . . . meani ngs whi ch were closer to the ' core' , that i s,

were more basi c i n meani ng, were more l i kel y to be

transferred than those whi ch were furthest fromthe

core . " (Gass 1984 :129)

Gass gi ves as examples, ' ki ck the bucket' and ' ki ck the bal l ' wth

the l atter bei ng percei ved as the more transferabl e of the proposi ti ons .

Si ml arl y Kel l erman (1978) showed that Dutch students were more wl l i ng

to transfer the meani ng of the Dutch verb ' breehen' to an Engl i sh context

such as ' He broke hi s l eg' than ' The waves broke on the shore' though

both are equal l y acceptabl e i n Dutch and Engl i sh .

Hatch makes a siml ar poi nt i n her di scussi on of transfer (Hatch

1983) cl ai mng that transfer i s not randombut systemati c, wth a tendency

to be l i mted to core meani ngs . Hatch notes however that l anguage

' di stance' may be a factor . The more si ml ar the l anguages appear to be,

the more l i kel y the l earner i s to extend the transfer ; the more di stant,

the more conservati ve the transfer wl l be .

As was suggested earl i er i n the di scussi on of hedge term, l anguage

users appear to have a strong i ntui ti ve ' feel ' for the degree of

prototypi cal i ty of meani ng - formrel ati onshi ps i n vari ous contexts . The

di scussi ons of transfer referred to above suggest that the noti on of

prototypi cal i ty of meani ng i s rel ated i n i nteresti ng ways to theori es of

the nature of l anguage uni versal s, to marked/unmarked di sti ncti ons both

wthi n l anguages and across them (unmarked bei ng more uni versal , l ess

l anguage-speci f i c and more transferabl e) and therefore to speed and ease

of l earni ng and, using Hatch' s analogy of a cogni ti ve punch card system

to the questi on of whether 'meani ngs' for the di fferent l anguage form

requi re modi fi cati on to exi sti ng cards or whether new cards have to be

' punched' .



The probl em for the l anguage teacher who attempts a di rect approach

to the teachi ng of speci f i c aspects of the l anguage systemhave been wel ldocumented Theoreti cal and practi cal obj ecti ons have been rai sed i n

profusi on si nce the grammar-transl ati on approach was condemned for, as

R vers succi nctl y expressed i t, teachi ng about the l anguage i nstead ofteachi ng the l anguage . El i mnati ng (or at l east radi cal l y curtai l i ng)overt i nstructi on about the grammar di d not end the probl emor the

obj ecti ons to ' structural ' exerci ses . These have been seen to be i rrel evantto the "necessary and suff i ci ent condi ti ons for l anguage acqui si ti on"(Newmark and Rei bel , 1970), as i ndeed they are, and as a mere waste of time,

which i s more arguabl e ; as a cause of teacher-i nduced error (Corbl uth 1974 )

(and most honest l anguage teachers wnce i n recogni ti on of the at l east

parti al truth of thi s) ; as promoti ng "l anguage-l i ke behavi our" (Spol sky 1968) ,

"structure-tal k" (Dakin, 1973), & "usage" rather than l anguage "use"(Wddowson 1978) . Yet the structural exercise l i ves on, depri ved now of i t s

behavi ouri st and structural i st underpi nni ngs, i t neverthel ess seem to be

an essenti al el ement wthi n most l anguage teaching programmes, and i s

regarded as such by most teachers .

I n practi cal term, addressi ng speci f i c aspects of the l anguagesystemcan be unsati sfactory, i f not downri ght embarassi ng for the teacherwho val ues cl ari ty and consi stency i n expl anati on and/or exempl i f i cati on .

' Rul es' ( i . e . the formmeani ng rel ati onshi p real i sed by a l i ngui sti c

element) at ti mes appear to operate consi stentl y i n di f ferenti ati ng the

semanti c functi ons of rel ated el ements (equated here wth prototypi cal

i nstances), at other ti mes the di sti ncti on di sappears (boundary phenomena) .

The data presented bel owexempl i fy the probl emand demonstrate the

appl i cabi l i ty of prototype theory to pedagogi cal i ssues of the l i ngui sti c

system fi rst to show that prototype theory has general appl i cati on, and

secondl y to substanti ate the maj or cl ai mof cogni ti ve l i ngui sti cs, which Itake to be as fol l ows

:Every l i ngui sti c formexpresses an underl yi ng

cogni ti ve enti ty (or meani ng) which can be di fferenti ated fromazz other

such enti ti es where the real i sati on of those enti ti es i s prototypi cal .

The fi rst exampl e attempts to cl ari fy what I amnot tal ki ng about .

I t i l l ustrates purel y formal probl em wthi n the grammar . Sapi r sai d

that "al l grammars l eak", and Ross, fromwhomthi s example i s taken, states

that such sentences " . . . . fal l between the cracks of the core system"

1 . Ei ther Tomor the gi r7 s (was were) responsible

There i s no sol uti on wthi n Engl i sh grammar to thi s probl emof

subj ect/verb agreement . Users of Engl i sh simpl y have to avoi d suchconstructi ons i f they wsh to avoi d formal error . Formal probl em of this

ki nd woul d ( I l i ke to thi nk) cause enormous di f f i cul ti es for that hypothe-

ti cal autonomous, context-f ree, sentence-maki ng machi ne as i t gri nds on

through eterni ty generati ng al l and onl y the sentences of the l anguage .

Such probl em do not concern us here .

Example 2 i l l ustrates what I wl l refer to as ' weakened' meani ng

val ues, or ' boundary' phenomena .



2 . They were both wearing the same hat .

There i s a systemati c di sti ncti on i n Engl i sh between same and' i denti cal ' . Gven the prototypi cal val ues of th s di sti ncti on, ( 2) coul d

possi b y be the capti on to a rather weak j oke, or an entry i n a fancydress parade yet very fewpeopl e woul d i nterpret ( 2) i n that way . I twould be read as meani ng that two peopl e were weari ng i denti cal . , orsiml ar, hats . I n (3), no j oke i nterpretati on i s possi b e .

3 . (Lady entering a fri end' s f l at) We' ve both got the same stai r-carpet!

There i s noth ng unnatural about ( 2) or ( 3) . No amb gui ty oruncertai nty about the meaning of the utterance resul ts fromth s weakeni ngof the meani ng val ue of ' same' and the consequent bl urri ng of the 'po ar'

' same' and ' i denti caZ the ri sti ncti on wth ' i denti cal ' . (4) gi ves

prototypi cal val ues .

4 . (Customer i n a j ewel l ery store) I s th s the same gemstone that you

showedm before, or an i dentical one?

one mght al so speak of ' i denti cal . twns' and

' same twns' woul d have a qui te di f ferent meani ng, and no change of

context coul d render ' same twn' equival ent t o ' i denti cal tra n' . I n th s

sense, prototypi cal val ues are context-free .

The

Numeri cal reference mght seemto be one aspect . of the l anguagewh chwoul d be unl i kel y to exh b t weakened or vari ab e semanti c val ues .

The fol l owng characteri ses the prototypi cal . val ues of a part of that .

system

5 . They surveyed the l and on ei ther si de of the ri ver .

6 .

A l : more than two

Both two

Ei ther : one or other of two

Nei ther : not e ther

Example 5 means

second l anguage speakers

' the l and was surveyed on one si de of the ri ver but

because they have appl i ed the prototypi cal val ue ofwh l e nati ve speakers do not . I t i s of course easy

prototypi cal val ues i n operati on, as i n ( 6) .

You can have ei ther of these, but , don' t, take, themboth

semanti c features wh ch ' ei ther' and ' both' share rel ate to

' twoness' ; and i n parti cul ar contexts the prototypi cal val ue of ' ei ther'

weakens to express these shared features . I n pai red opposi ti ons of th s

ki nd, one element may therefore be regarded as marked ( ' i denti cal ' and

' both' ) , i ts val ue bei ng capab e of be ng subsumed by the unmarked

element (' same' and ' ei ther' ).

The

' non-i denti cal twns' .

that both si des of the ri ver were surveyed Some

of Engl i sh, however, understand ( 5) as meani ng :not on the other' ,

the word ' e ther' ,to i l l ustrate the



The next set of examples i nvesti gates the rel ati onshi p wthi n the

verb phrase between the perfecti ve aspect and simpl e form of the verb

phrase . Exampl e 7 i l l ustrates the prototypi cal di sti ncti on between the

present perfect and the past simpl e tense .

7 (I ntervi ewer to i nterviewee)( a) How Long have you Lived i n . London?

( b) How Long di d you Li ve i n London?

I n (8) , the di sti ncti on, i f i t exi sts at al l , i s mnimal , af fecti ng

nei ther the appropri acy of the questi on nor i ts communi cati ve ef fect .

8 (Wfe to husband as he i s getti ng i nto bed)

( a) Have you Locked the door?

( b) Dd you Lock the door?

The semanti c feature shared by the past simpl e and present perfect

tenses i s ' pastness' , the polar opposi ti on between the two tenses expresses

the relevance, or l ack of i t , of a past acti on to a present si tuati on

I n (7b), the choi ce of the past tense i ndi cates a presupposi ti on on

the part of the speaker that a si tuati on no l onger exi sts ( i . e . the

addressee no l onger l i ves i n London) . I n 7a, the choi ce of the present

perfect tense i ndi cates a presupposi ti on that he or she does still l i ve i n

London I n ( 8) however, the noti on that a husband after : Locking up the

house for the ni ght, mght unl ock i t agai n, would be too machi avel l i an f or

most readers, and most wves ; so the di sti ncti on becomes . redundant .

Siml arl y, the past perf ect tense may operate prototypi cal l y i n

opposi ti on to the past si mpl e tense as i n ( 9) ;

9 ( a) When our guests f i nal l y arri ved, we had eaten al l the food

(b) When our guests f i nal l y arri ved, we ate a7 l the f ood

Or i t may not, as i n ( 1Q) .

10. ( a) We Wal ked for tenml es before, we got, a Li ft .

(b) We had wal ked for ten mles before we got a Li ft .

The perfecti ve aspect may even be consi dered onl y margi nal l y

acceptabl e i n contexts such as ( 11) ; though i ts use would seemto be

' correct' j udged by purel y formal cri teri a .

11. ( a) We were havi ng a good time unt i l , you arri ved

( b) We had been having a good time unti l you arri ved

The future perfect tense al so may mai ntai n a cl ear meani ng di sti ncti on

between i tsel f and the future simpl e ;

12 . (a) We wl l have f i ni shed when you get there .

( b) We wZZf i ni sh when you get there .



or the di sti ncti on may be weakened to the poi nt where i t no l onger

operates .

13 (a) W wl l fi ni sh before you arri ve

(b) W wl l have fi ni shed before you arri ve

The past perfect and future perfect tenses express the rel ati onshi p

i n tim of one event to another . However there are other ways of expressi ng

sequence ; the order i n which events are recounted i s assumed to be the

order i n which they occurred and i t i s onl y when thi s assumpti on i s

i ncorrect or when other markers such as ' before' , ' af ter' , are absent

that these perfect tenses express thei r pol ar val ues ( i . e . i n 9a and 12a) .

Wthi n the noun phrase system determners, quanti f i ers, countabi l i ty

and pl ural i ty are used bel ow to i l l ustrate thi s sam feature of the rul es

and thei r rel ati onshi ps . The polar meani ng val ues may be reduced to the

poi nt where the choice of one or other of the rel ated form i s equal l y

natural and i n, no way changes the meani ng:e. g

.( 14) and

( l 5) for ' a/the'

and ' some/any' respecti vel y.

14 . (a) I askeda taxi driver who brought us here .

(b) I asked the taxi driver who brought us here .

15 . (Butcher to customr)

( a) Wuldyou l i ke any sausages today, Ms . Brown?

(b) Wuldyou l i ke some sausages today, Ms Broom

I n ( 16) and ( 17) the polar val ues are i n ful l opposi ti on, and the

meani ngs expressed are therefore cl earl y di fferent .

I n polar opposi ti on wth ' a ' , ' the' expresses such semanti c features

as ' known' , ' speci fi abl e' , and ' unambiguous i n term of reference' as i n

( 16) .

I t coul d be obj ected that ( 16) i s a hi ghl y col l oqui al usage (' the

wfe' ), but there i s no reason why col l oqui al usage shoul d requi re a set of

rul es di sti nct fromformal usage ; qui te the contrary . The meani ng val ues

of this usage conformpreci sel y to those i ndi cated above, and are paral l el ed

by such other exampl es as ' the pub' , ' the church' , ' the car' , ' the shop'

and for that matter ' the oldman . However, ( 7 . 8) provi des a mre ' standard'

i l l ustrati on showng both weakened and polar val ues of ' a' and ' the' .

18 . As I was crossing (a/the) busy road i n town, dodging cars and bi cycl es

to catch (a/ the) bus that was j ust l eavi ng, (a/ the) driver sl ammed hi s

brakes on and then swore at me .

16 . (a) I 'mLooking for a wfe .

(b) I 'ml ooking for the oi fe .

17 (a) Some of my fri ends would l endyou the money

(b) Any of my fri ends would l endyou the money



I n the three i nstances i n ( 18) where ' a' or ' the' may be i nserted,

the choi ce i s semanti cal l y empty i n the fi rst two . A nati ve speaker mghtuse, or accept the use of , ei ther, and the meani ng of the message as a

whol e would not be affected i n any way . The shared features of ' a' and' the' seemto be the purel y formal ones associ ated wth thei r status asdetermners : i . e . for each of these noun phrases there i s a formal

requi rement for a determner.

Ei ther ' a' or ' the' can ful f i l thatrequi rement . I n the thi rd i nstance, however, the pol ar opposi ti on i s

cruci al to the i denti f i cati on of the swearer ; ' a driver' would si gni fy anyone of the many usi ng the busy road at that time ; ' the dri ver' must refer

to the dri ver of the bus, the onl y speci f i ed vehi cle, and therefore by

i mpl i cati on, the onl y speci f i abl e dri ver . Siml arl y ' some' and ' any'

have a def i ni te/ i ndef i ni te pol ar opposi ti on as i n (17), whi ch may be

weakened to the poi nt where ei ther i s merely a general i sed marker of

quanti ty ( 15) .

The feature of ' countabi l i ty' , which di sti ngui shes 'mass' nouns

from ' countabl e' nouns i n Engl i sh, has a clear semanti c val ue i n

di sti ngui shi ng ' stone' the materi al from ' a stone' ; ' gl ass' f rom ' a gl ass' ;

' cl oth' f rom ' a cloth' . But i n some contexts the di sti ncti on i s weakenedto the poi nt where ei ther formmay be used .

19 . (a) The mxture of gas i n these contai ners i s explosi ve

(b) The mxture of gasses i n these containers i s explosive

The rel ati ons di scussed above are essenti al l y paradi gmati c ; i . e .

they i l l ustrate the di f ferences i n meani ng which may, or may not, resul t

fromsubsti tuti ng one el ement i n an utterance for another element,

depending upon whether the val ues expressed by the opposi ti on between the

elements i s operati ng strongl y or weakly . Constrai nts al so operate

syntagmati cal l y ; e . g . determni ng whether a non-f i ni te verb shoul d bereal i sed as an i nf i ni ti ve or as a present part i ci pl e i n a parti cul ar

embedded clause . The verb ' want' ( 20) i s sai d to co-occur wth or ' take'

an i nf i ni ti ve :

20 . I want to tal k to her at , the party .

whi l e ' enj oy' co-occurs wth the ' - i ng' formof the embedded verb ( 2 1 )

21 . I enjoyed talking to her at the party .

These restri cti ons are general l y consi dered to be purel y formal ;

i . e . they do not mark any semanti c val ue, and exampl es such as ( 22) appear

to support the noti on that no semanti c val ue i s i nvol ved, and even torai se questi ons about the central i ty i n the l anguage systemof the meani ng

-formrel ati onshi p

22 . (a) He l i kes tal king to people at , parti es.

(b) He l i kes to tal k to people at parti es .

Exampl e ( 23) however shows that there i s a meani ng di sti ncti on

when the prototypi cal val ues operate .

- 20 -



23 . ( a) He' s too drunk to remember to post the l etter .

( b) He' s too drunk to remember posti ng the Zetter .

The i nfi ni ti ve seem to express or rel ate to unful f i l l ed condi ti ons

or future acti ons, whi l e the parti ci pi al formseem to express ful fi l l ed

or compl eted acti ons .

The fact that the verb ' want' can onl y be associ ated wth the

i nfi ni ti ve formtends to confi rmthat the choi ce i s semanti cal l y based

since ' want' impl i es an unful f i l l ed condi ti on ( 20) . Enj oyment, i t seem,

can rel ate onl y to what has been experi enced or i s bei ng experi enced, and

not to unful f i l l ed condi ti ons ( 21) . Thus co-occu. r ence wth the i nfi ni ti ve

or parti ci pi al form seem to be determned semanti cal l y and not formal l y .

However, thi s l eaves for consi derati on verbs sai d to take ei ther form

Cases such as ( 22) can be accommodated wthi n the theory bei ng presented

here as ' boundary' phenomena, but further i nvesti gati on shows that such

verbs are i n fact affected by the same semanti c cri teri a and that

prototypi cal i nstances do ari se .

24 ( a) I woul d l i ke to borrowyour car, i f I may .

( b) ' * I woul d l i ke borrowng your car, i f I may .

I n (24), where ' l i ke' has many of the features of 'want' , ( a) i s

cl earl y acceptabl e, and ( b) i s not . I n ( 25) the si tuati on regardi ng

acceptabi l i ty i s reversed

25 . ( a) I l i ked dri vi ng your car very much l ast weekend

(b) ' * I Zi ked to dri ve your car very much- l ast weekend

I n (25), ' l i ke' has much the same semanti c val ue as ' en, ~oy' , andin this case the ' -i ng' formi s acceptabl e, and the i nfi ni ti ve i s not .

Thus, the essence of the theory of l anguage presented here i s that

i t i s a ' meani ng-dri ven' system Li ngui sti c rul es exi st, to use Sapi r' s

expressi on, i n order to keep meani ngs apart . Li ngui sti c form are

di screte enti ti es, but the meani ngs these form express are not di screte

i n any sense. Thei r val ues are determned by the nature of-the rel ati on-

shi ps obtai ni ng wth other el ements wthi n the system These rel ati onshi ps

are not constant, but may be strongl y expressed through opposi ti on of

prototypi cal meani ng val ues, or these val ues may be weakened i n non

arbi trary ways depending upon context .

The prototypi cal val ues di scussed and i l l ustrated in this paperare cl earl y not the basi c uni ts of meani ng . These have been referred to

here rather i nformal l y as ' semanti c features' or ' cogni ti ve el ements' .

Li ngui sts, psychol i ngui sts cogni ti ve psychol ogi sts and phi l osophers, anyone

i n fact who mght be i nterested i n the study of the nature of meani ng, must

cl earl y focus upon these abstract underl yi ng el ements .

of abstracti on chosen for di scussi on here i s that which

appropri ate for pedogagi cal purposes ; i . e . the l evel at

can be rel ated most transparentl y to i ts real i sati on as

As wl l be obvious by now the cl aimbeing made in this

prototypi cal i nstances of formmeani ng rel ati onshi ps offer ' enri ched'

i nput to the l anguage acqui si ti on devi ce .

However, the l evel

i s consi deredmost

which meani ng val ue

l i ngui sti c, form

paper i s that



I n an important sense, the ways i n which the mnd processes and

stores i nput are i rrel evant to l anguage teachi ng and l earni ng The

' l anguage acqui si ti on devi ce' my be rel i ed upon to do whatever i t does,

provi ded onl y that the necessary and suffi ci ent condi ti ons for l anguage

acqui si ti on are mt . The questi on then ari ses whether i t my be possi bl e

to enhance the necessary and suffi ci ent condi ti ons by ' enri chi ng' the

i nput to the L.A.D. i n vari ous ways . The questi on has not been addressed

di rectl y i n thi s paper, but the assumpti on here i s that i nterventi on i s

possi bl e and desi rabl e, and promotes more rapi d and more effecti ve l anguage

l earni ng than woul d otherwse be possi bl e .

The parti cul ar type of i nterventi on under consi derati on here i s the

' structural exercise' , i nvol vi ng the i denti f i cati on of a parti cul ar ' r ul e'

wthi n the l anguage system ( i . e . a parti cul ar mani ng/formrelati onshi p)

and the developmnt of a seri es of l earni ng experi ences whi ch wl l enabl e

the l earner to focus upon, gai n access to, and fi nal l y i ntegrate that rul e

i nto the i nternal i sed l anguage system thus movi ng the l earner forward

al ong the i nterl anguage conti nuum

Summry and ConeZusi on

Thi s paper has di scussed a parti cul ar theory of cogni ti ve categor-

i sati on, prototype theory, which has been appl i ed to l i ngui sti cs under

the general headi ng of cogni ti ve . l i ngui stics . The data presented

i l l ustrate the vari abl e nature of the semnti c real i sati on of l i ngui sti c

rul es showng that mani ng-formrel ati onshi ps my be real i sed strongl y .

i . e . prototypi cal l y, or weakly dependi ng upon context . I t i s m contenti on

that prototypi cal i nstances offer preci sel y that enri ched data which shoul d

faci l i tate the work of the l anguage acqui si ti on devi ce . The nature of

the teachi ng and l earni ng acti vi ti es which woul d best . expl oi t the potential

of such i nstances must be l eft to a future paper . The questi on whether

such i nterventi on i s i n fact of any val ue must be tested empi ri cal l y .



REFERENCES

Bai l ey, C-J . N and Shuy, R. W (Eds . ) 1973 . NewWys of Analysi ng

Vari ati ons i n Engl i sh Wshington, D. C . : Georgetown Uni versi ty Press .

Brown, G and Yul e, G 1983 Dscourse Analysis.

Cambri dge : Cambri dge,Uni versi ty Press .

Cark, E 1979 The Ontogenesi s of Meaning Wesbaden : AkademscheVerl agsgesel l schaft Athenai on .

Corbl uth, J . D 1974 . ' Remdi ati on or devel opmnt' . Engl i sh Language

Teaching 28(2) :118-25.

Daki n, J . 1973 The Language Laboratory andLanguage Learning

London:Longmn

Gass, S . and Sel i nker, L . (Eds . ) 1983 Language Transfer i n Language

Learning Rowey, Mass . : Newbury House .

Gass, S . 1984 . ' A Revi ewof I nterl anguage Syntax : Language Transferand Language Uni versal s' . Language Learning 34(2) :115-132 .

Hatch, E. M 1983 Psychol inguisti cs: a Second Language Perspective

Rowey, Mass . : Newbury House .

Kay, P . 1979 . ' The Ro e of Cogni ti ve Schemata i n Word Meani ng Hedges

Revi si ted. ' Berkekey Cogni ti ve Sci ence Program m .

Kel l ermn, E 1978 ' Gvi ng Learners a break : nati ve l anguage i ntui ti ons

as a source of predi cti on about transferabi l i ty' . WorkingPapers i nbi l i ngual i sm15:59-92 .

Kel l ermn, E 1979 ' Transfer and non-transfer : where we are now .Studies i n Second Language Acquisiti on 2 : 37-57 .

Kel l ermn, E . 1983 ' Now you see i t . Nowyo 3 don' t' . i n S . Gass andL . Sel i nker (Eds . ) q. v .

Labov, W 1973 ' The Boundari es of words and thei r mani ngs' i n

C-J . N Bai l ey and R.W Shuy (Eds . ) , pp 340-73 .

Lakoff, G 1982 . ' Categori es and Cogni ti ve Models' Seri es A, No. 96,

Tri er : Li ngui sti c Agency Uni versi ty Tri er .

Newmrk, L . and Rei bel , D. A . 1970. ' Necessi ty and Suffi ci ency i n Language

Learni ng' i n M Lester (Ed . ) Readings i n Appl i ed Transformational

Grammar . New York : Ho t, R nehart andWnston, pp 220-244 .

Rosch, E . and Mervis, C . B . 1975 . ' Faml y resembl ances : studi es i n the

i nternal structure of categori es' . Cogni ti ve Psycho ogy 7 : 573-605 .

Rosch, E . , Mervis, B . , Gray, WD. , Johnson, D.M and Bayes-Braem P .1976 ' Basi c obj ects i n natural categori es' . Cogni tive Psychol ogy 8

382-439

- 23 -



Ross, J . R 1972 . ' The category squi sh : endstati on hauptwort' i n Papers

for the Ei ghth Regi onal Meeti ng of the Chi cago Li ngui sti c Soci ety,

pp 316-328 .

Ross, J . R 1973 . ' A fake NP squi sh' i n C-J . N Bai l ey and R.W Shuy ( Eds . )

pp 96-140 .

Rutherford, W 1982 . ' Markedness i n Second Language Acqui si ti on'

Language Learni ng, 32 :85-108

Rutherford, W 1983 . ' Language typology and Language Transfer' i n

S . Gass and L . Sel i nker (Eds . )

Saussure, F . de . 1953 . Cours de Li ngui sti que Generate . Pari s : Payot .

Spolsky, B . 1966 . ' Cri ti que i n programmd F. L . i nstructi on' .I nternati onal Revi ewof Appl i ed Li ngui sti cs 4 : 11. 9-129 .

Wddowson, H. G 1978.

Teaching Language asCommuni cati on . London :

Oxford Uni versi ty Press .

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alinenardes
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Johnson Prototype Theory

Documents