johnson prototype theory
TRANSCRIPT
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
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 2/13
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
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 3/13
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 -
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 4/13
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' .
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 5/13
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 .
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 6/13
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
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 7/13
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 .
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 8/13
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
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 9/13
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 -
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 10/13
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
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 11/13
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 .
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 12/13
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 -
7/29/2019 Johnson Prototype Theory
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnson-prototype-theory 13/13
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 .