exemplars and prototypes

[Brian MacWhinney]

   Regarding David Kronenfeld's note on exemplars and prototypes and the
possibility of terminological slippage, let me say that the distinction is
fairly clear in the psychological literature.  An exemplar is a specific
real-world instance, i.e. a particular dog or a particular candle.  A
prototype is a merger of the best or common features of the many exemplars.
David is referring to the contrast in cognitive anthropology between
featural theory and prototype theory.  This contrast also exists in
psychology and many papers have been written arguing for one or the other,
but no one really challenges the potential relevance of exemplars during
the initial phases of induction.  The issue is whether the role of
exemplars in the final system is secondary and peripheral or major and
central.
  In any case, I don't sense any terminological slippage.  Instead, I think
there is a basic disagreement in both fields regarding (1) the relative
importance of exemplars and (2) the decision to opt for feature theory vs.
prototype theory.
  The range of my reading in cognitive anthropology is fairly restricted,
so I am happy to stand corrected on this.

--Brian MacWhinney