Larry Barsalou's note via Mike Tomasello

[David_Tuggy at SIL.ORG]

     The same is true in quite a bit of "Cognitive linguistics" work
     (including some I have written)--what is billed as "prototype"
     categorization is reacting to distinctive-feature or strict-boundary
     categorization, and does not have the prototype/exemplar distinction
     in mind.

     --David Tuggy


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Larry Barsalou's note via Mike Tomasello
Author:  kfeld at CITRUS.UCR.EDU at internet
Date:    10/16/98 12:23 AM


        In reference to Larry Barsalou's very interesting information
regarding exemplars vs. prototypes, it is worth noting that the
exemplar/prototype distinction has not been made within much semantic work
in anthropology, where the contrast has been "prototype" ("kernel" or
"core")-based definitions vs. distinctive feature definitions of whole
categories.  Discussions of "prototypes" in anthropology may really, to a
greater or lesser degree, pertain to Barsalou's exemplars; it will be
necessary to consider the ways that the "prototypes" in question are
actually defined and used in any given case to determine how they relate to
the exemplar/prototype distinction.
        I offer this observation because there seems some possibility of
useful insights coming from both directions, and it would be a shame if such
exchange were short-circuited by a labeling glitch.