Prototype theory and lexical semantics

Abstract

The notion that natural categories have a prototypic structure has proved itself to be one of the most fruitful to emerge in the recent development of cognitive science: references to prototype theory constantly appear in the literature in an impressively wide range of topic areas, such as, for example, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and aphasiology. Scholars in these disciplines find themselves obliged to confront the ideas put forward by prototype theorists. This is particularly true of my own subject, lexical semantics. This chapter accordingly represents my attempt to assess prototype theory and its place within lexical semantics. I shall begin by outlining the basic tenets of prototype theory; then I shall discuss a number of problematic issues arising from the theory, before presenting a rough sketch of my own version of it. Finally, I shall attempt to outline the role that such a theory might play in a comprehensive account of word meaning. Geeraerts (1987b) warns us not to fall into the trap of expecting theconcepts of prototype theory to have precise, ‘classical’ definitions: to be consistent, we must accept that they themselves will have a prototypic structure. A nice point. However, there is, perhaps, danger in taking it too seriously: it is one thing to discover that the concepts used by humans to handle their world on an everyday basis have a prototypic structure; it is quite another thing to set out to establish a science on the basis of fuzzy concepts. Nevertheless, it is true that the notion of a prototype is to some extent difficult to pin down, and I shall be obliged, at least initially, to concentrate on what I take to be the prototypical features of prototype theory. There are two different perspectives within prototype theory, andalthough they are intimately connected, it aids clarity of exposition to consider them separately, at least to begin with. The first perspective is basically a matter of looking at the relations between a category and its members. Taking the second perspective involves attempting to describea category or concept in terms of its characteristic features. If we adopt the first perspective, we shall apply the adjective prototypical to certain members of a category; if we adopt the second perspective, we shall apply prototypical to certain characteristics or features of the category. The second perspective is generally the more congenial to linguists, as the attributes of a category can readily be viewed as semantic features of the word which serves as a conventional label for the category.