Page 39 Page 39 3 prototypes in cognitive linguistics

Note

1 In order to calculate cue and category validities we need information on the

overall frequency of the features, the categories, and the occurrence of the

features in the categories. For semantic categories, these data are simply not

obtainable. (How could we ever determine the number of times we have

encountered  “flying things” along with data on the number birds, and flying

birds, that we have encountered?) Such data is, however, readily derivable from

language corpora with respect to the occurrence of constructions and their

constituents. Thus, Gries (2003) was able to apply the notion of cue validity in

order to characterize the prototypes of two contrasting constructions in

English, namely the ditransitive [V NP NP] and its prepositional alternative

[V NP to/for NP]. The “features” of the constructions involved such aspects as

the animacy of the NPs, their length, their definiteness, and their status as given

or new.

Bibliography

Aarts, B. (2004). Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language, 28, 1–49.

Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., & Popova, G. (Eds.) (2004). Fuzzy grammar: A

reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the

analysis of variation in meaning. In Cuyckens et al. (2003), pp. 29–65.

Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts

might not be. Cognition, 13, 163–308.

Avrahami, J., Kareev, Y., Bogot, Y., Caspi, R., Dunaevsky, S., & Lerner, S. (1997).

Teaching by examples: Implications for the process of category acquisition.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 586–606.

Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford:

CSLI Publications.

Barsalou, L. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.

Barsalou, L. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature

of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.) Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological

and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Barsalou, L. (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The

Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 27 (pp. 1–64). New York, Academic

Press.

Blank, A. & Koch, P. (Eds.) (1999). Historical semantics and cognition. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

H A N D B O O K   O F   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S   A N D   S L A

60

09:46:04:11:07

Page 61

Page 61

Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic

structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Coleman L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word “lie”.

Language, 57, 26–44.

Coseriu, E. (2002). Structural semantics and “cognitive” semantics. Logos and

Language, 1, 19–42.

Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (Eds.) (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical

semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena.

Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 1–63.

Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses

in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141.

Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R. (1988). The conceptualization of vertical space in

English: The case of tall. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics

(pp. 379–402). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning

mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition, 12, 20–30.

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. A review with implica-

tions for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Fehr, B., & Russel, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype

perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464–486.

Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of “crawl”. In Y.

Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches

(pp. 91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fodor, J. (1980). The present status of the innateness controversy. In Representa-

tions: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science (pp. 257–316).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts.  Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1996). The red herring and the pet fish: Why concepts still

can’t be prototypes. Cognition, 58, 253–270.

Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27,

587–612.

Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics,

4, 223–272.

Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexi-

cology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical vari-

ation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gleason, H. A. (1955). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Goldberg, A. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of

the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 37–74.

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

P RO T O T Y P E S   I N   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S

61

09:46:04:11:07

Page 62

Page 62

Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument struc-

ture generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.

Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2005). The role of prediction in

construction-learning. Journal of Child Language, 32, 407–426.

Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices. Episodic traces in spoken word identi-

fication and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1,166–1,183.

Gries, S. T. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances

of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–18.

Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A

corpus-based perspective on “alternations”.  International Journal of Corpus

Linguistics, 9, 97–129.

Grieser, D., & Kuhl, P. (1989). Categorization of speech by infants: Support for

speech-perception prototypes. Developmental Psychology, 25, pp. 577–588.

Hallan, N. (2001). Paths to prepositions? A corpus-based study of the acquisition

of a lexico-grammatical category. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and

the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hampton, J. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.

Memory and Cognition, 15, 55–71.

Hampton, J. (1991). The combination of prototype concepts. In P. Schwanenflugel

(Ed.),  The psychology of word meanings (pp. 91–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Heider, E. R. (1971). “Focal” color areas and the development of color names.

Developmental Psychology, 4, 447–455.

Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 93, 10–20.

Hintzman, D. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.

Psychological Review, 93, 328–338.

Hummel, M. (1994). Regard critique sur la sémantique du prototype. Cahiers de

lexicologie, 65, 159–182.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, K. (1997) Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exem-

plar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech

processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.

Jones, D. (1964). An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: Heffer. First published

1918.

Jusczyk, P. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of

basic color terms. Language, 54, 610–646.

Kleiber, G. (1990). La sémantique du prototype: Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: PUF.

Kristiansen, G. (2003). How to do things with allophones: Linguistic stereotypes

as cognitive reference points in social cognition. In R. Dirven, R. Frank, & M.

Pütz (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideology, metaphors and

meanings (pp. 69–120). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of

category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.

Kuhl, P. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet

H A N D B O O K   O F   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S   A N D   S L A

62

09:46:04:11:07

Page 63

Page 63

effect” for prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and

Psychophysics, 50, 93–107.

Kuhl, P. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 97 (no. 22), 11,850–11,857.

Kuhl, P., & Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet

effect”. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in

cross-language research (pp. 121–154). Timonium, Md.: York Press.

Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C.-J. Bailey &

R. W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 340–372).

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Reprinted in Aarts et al.

(2004), 67–89.

Lachs, L., McMichael, K., & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Speech perception and implicit

memory: Evidence for detailed episodic encoding of phonetic events. Research

on Spoken Language Processing, Progress Report, No. 24 (pp. 149–167). Speech

Research Laboratory, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Lakoff, G. (1982). Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics. In The Linguistic

Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from

SICOL-1981 (pp. 139–193). Seoul: Hanshin.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the

mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical pre-

requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

MacLaury, R. (1991). Prototypes revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology,  20,

55–74.

MacLaury, R. (1995). Vantage theory. In J. Taylor & R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language

and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 231–276). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

McClelland, J., Fiez, J., & McCandliss, B. (2002). Teaching the /r/-/l/ discrimin-

ation to Japanese adults: Behavioral and neural aspects. Physiology and Behavior,

77, 657–662.

Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, E. J. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.

Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.

Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Murphy, G., & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.

Psychological Review, 92, 289–316.

Nathan, G. (1986). Phonemes as mental categories. Proceedings of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society, 12, 212–223.

Nosofsky, R.M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classifica-

tion, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning

Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700–708.

Ortony, A., Vondruska, R., Voss, M., & Jones. L. (1985). Salience, similes, and the

asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594.

Osherson, D., & Smith, E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a

theory of concepts. Cognition, 9, 35–58.

Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and

contrast. In Bybee & Hopper (2001), pp. 137–157.

P RO T O T Y P E S   I N   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S

63

09:46:04:11:07

Page 64

Page 64

Pierrehumbert, J. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven & N.

Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101–139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Posner, M. L. & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.

Pulman, S. G. (1983). Word meaning and belief. London: Croom Helm.

Renouf, A. & Sinclair, J. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In K.

Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 128–143). London:

Longman.

Rice, S. (2003). Growth of a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisi-

tion. In Cuyckens et al. (2003), pp. 243–280.

Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 665–681.

Rosch. E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.

Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.

Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-

cultural psychology. Vol. 1 (pp. 3–49). London: Academic Press.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.),

Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reprinted in Aarts et al. (2004), pp. 91–108.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal

structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.

Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S. (1999). Prototype versus exemplar models. In R. J.

Steinberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information page.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 608–613.

Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning:

Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s?  Cognitive

Linguistics, 6, 89–130.

Schacter, D. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501–518.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Stefanowitch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction

between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8,

209–243.

Stevens, K. (1972). The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articulatory-

acoustic data. In E. E. David & P. D. Denes (Eds.), Human communication: A

unified view (pp. 51–66). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sweetser, E. (1987). The definition of lie: An examination of the folk models

underlying a semantic prototype. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural

models in language and thought (pp. 43–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. R. (1998). Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Toma-

sello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to

language structure (pp. 177–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

H A N D B O O K   O F   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S   A N D   S L A

64

09:46:04:11:07

Page 65

Page 65

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. R. (2003a). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

First edition: 1989.

Taylor, J. R. (2003b). Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: “High” and “tall”

revisited. Language Sciences, 25, 263–284.

Taylor, J. R. (2004). Why construction grammar is radical. Annual Review of Cog-

nitive Linguistics, 2, 321–348.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language

acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tsohatzidis, S. (Ed.) (1990). Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categoriza-

tion. London: Routledge.

Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics,  4,

273–290.

Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.

Uehara, S. (2003). A diachronic perspective on prototypicality: The case of nom-

inal adjectives in Japanese. In Cuyckens et al. (2003), pp. 363–391.

Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London:

Longman.

Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cogni-

tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Violi, P. (1997). Significato ed esperienza. Milan: Bompiani. [Meaning and Experi-

ence, Trans. Jeremy Carden, 2001, Bloomington: Indiana University Press]

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor, MI:

Karoma.

Wierzbicka, A. 1990. “Prototypes save”: On the uses and abuses of the notion of

“prototype” in linguistics and related fields. In Tsohatzidis (1990), pp. 347–367.

Reprinted in Aarfts et al. (2004), pp. 461–478.

Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M.

Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cuyckens et al. (2003), pp. 447–494.

P RO T O T Y P E S   I N   C O G N I T I V E   L I N G U I S T I C S

65