Prototype theory

Cognitive semantics, which emerged in the 1980s, is a part of Cognitive Linguistics, which contributed greatly to the study of word meaning. Among the specific contributions mentioned by D. Geeraerts (Geeraerts: 196), alongside with the conceptual metaphor theory, the Idealized Cognitive Models and frame theory is the prototype theory. The theory originated in the mid 1970s with Eleanor Rosh’s psycholinguistic research into the structure of categories. She suggests that each category is represented by “the prototype” or “ideal” examples, which contain the most representative features of the category. When asked to give the example of the concept “bird”, a robin is more frequently cited than, say, a penguin; the prototypical example of the concept “furniture” is a chair, but not a stool. The margins of the linguistic categories are blurred, but the center is clear. She proves that when people categorize items, they watch them against the “prototype”, which is the most central item of the category. The items, which do not share all characteristic features of the “prototype”, are still members of the category, but not the prototypical ones, e.g. a penguin is a bird, but it does not have all characteristic features of an “ideal” bird – as we know, penguins do not fly.

In Rosch's theory, people categorize items and concepts based on a prototype or ideal representation of that category. For example, the concept of fruit refers to the sweet and juicy edible seed bearing part of the plant and is commonly used as a dessert rather than a main meal. When discussing or thinking about fruit, people think of classic, stereotypical examples such as apples, pears or bananas, because these represent the prototype. While a pineapple, watermelon or pomegranates might meet also meet the criteria of a fruit, these fruits are not prototypical of a dog. According to the prototype theory, certain features of a category have equal status, and thus, examples that represent all or most of those features become the prototype for that category. Items that do not share the majority of these features may still belong to that category, but do not represent the prototype. A pineapple or a watermelon may still be categorized as a fruit, but because these species are not the representative examples of this category.

The prototype theory was a new trend in categorization research; it brought into investigation and debate some of the traditional issues in conceptualization of meaning. George Lakoff has developed the categorization theory and noted that the connection between some categories is not straightforward – some of them are connected to each other by a family resemblance. Alongside with some classical categories there are at least two more types: generative and radial. Generative category can be formed on the basis of the central cases by applying certain principles to designate category membership. The principle of similarity is the example of the rule that generates a broader category from the given prototype. Radial categories are conventional; they are not predicted from the rules. As an example G. Lakoff suggests the concept of “mother”, which demonstrates a variety of features, which may or may not be sufficient. “The concept of "mother", for example, may be explained in terms of a variety of conditions that may or may not be sufficient. Those conditions may include: being married, has always been female, gave birth to the child, supplied half the child's genes, is a caregiver, is married to the genetic father, is one generation older than the child, and is the legal guardian”. (Lakoff 1987:82 - 83). Any one of the above conditions might not be met: for instance, a "single mother" does not need to be married, and a "surrogate mother" does not necessarily provide nurturance. When these aspects collectively cluster together, they form a prototypical case of what it means to be a mother, but nevertheless they fail to outline the category crisply. Variations upon the central meaning are established by convention by the community of language users.

4. Homonymy