Article

Can Prototype Representations Support Composition And Decomposition?

Lila R. Gleitman, Andrew C. Connolly and Sharon Lee Armstrong

in The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality

Published in print February 2012 | ISBN: 9780199541072
Published online September 2012 | | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.013.0020

Series: Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics

 Can Prototype Representations Support Composition And Decomposition?

Show Summary Details

Preview

This article reviews two kinds of experimental evidence from laboratories that challenge the adequacy of prototypes for representing human concepts. First, experiments suggesting that prototype theory does not distinguish adequately among concepts of maximally variant types, such as formal vs. natural kind and artifact concepts. Second, a more recent experimental line demonstrating how theories of conceptual combination with lexical prototypes fail to predict actual phrasal interpretations, such as language users' doubts as to whether Lithuanian apples are likely to be as edible as apples. An extensive body of empirical research seems to provide evidence for the psychological validity of the prototype position. The default to the compositional stereotype strategy (DS) mentions that barring information, to the contrary, assumes that the typical adjective–noun combination satisfies the noun stereotype.

Keywords: human concepts; lexical prototypes; phrasal interpretations; default to compositional; stereotype strategy; prototype composition

Article.  9047 words. 

Subjects: Linguistics ; Semantics ; Psycholinguistics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.