J. R. Taylor. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....with each other and weaker relation with words outside the cluster. Typical clusters are a combination of two types of clusters, flat and gradual, that is, a flat center with gradual expansion into the peripheral. The cluster structure shares some characteristics with the prototype category [6, 8]. In the traditional notion of category, the membership of a category is thought to be defined rigidly like the set notion. In the prototype category theory, in contrast, the membership is matter of gradient and the boundary of a category is fuzzy. The category of liquid containers provides an ....

J. R. Taylor. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.

....use of this term, see Santos (1996:3.3) 7 By categories here I mean grammatical categories in the sense of all distinctions that are reflected in the linguistic system . categorization and the categorization of the world that natural language embodies has also been argued at full length by Taylor (1989) in his book Linguistic categorization. Here, I am interested in looking at the state of affairs illustrated by Taylor from the converse point of view; namely, that the polysemy (or family resemblance) of grammatical categories goes on a par with the fact that different categories have ....

Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press..

.... BP1 9 k # 3 l KBP 7 F gradual i 9 O 7 7 F 4 j 35G0 G k 8l , I NDxEY k F 4 j KB0 7 F k ODxEYLdBj G k H 9M ( KBP1 9 k b N H J 5 l k # B: N 7 e l 7 g s G O 3 l i N2 o , 9 k , 3 l O W m H W F 4 j (Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995) H;w 9=B H9M ( i l k # 9 J o A flat JD:E O F 4 j NCf 4 a s P G = 3 i 8 g 8 g K F 4 j X5 B0 9 kEY9g , 5 J C F Cf 4 a s P H 3.2 8l4V4X78 H i 9 9=B N J 9 3 N a G O 8l4V4X78 N J 9 H i 9 N9=B JQ2= r8 k # 2(a) K8l4V4X78 N ....

J. R. Taylor. 1995. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

....family may make very different fine grained categorial distinctions. Thus French has about fifteen adjectival classes, according to distributional criteria, which are not shared by other Romance language [ Second, research in diachronic linguistics, particularly in grammaticalisation phenomena [13], has shown that a language s ontology keeps changing as part of language evolution. For example, the syntactic category auxiliary (with members like will, can, would, etc. apparently emerged only in middle English [ Before that period, the auxiliaries had the same syntactic constraints as ....

Taylor, J. (1995) Linguistic Categorization - Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

.... in fact give an exclusively paradigmatic account of PIT: the Pitoresco use of Imperfeito contrasts with a normal use of Perfeito in the description of a telic punctual and semelfactive event, producing a closeness effect (as if the reader is brought to the middle of the plot) 15 Interestingly, Taylor (1989) argues precisely the same way about the English about the English past tense, rejecting a view of remoteness as common core to past reference, counterfactuality and politeness. Rather, he uses the notion of a polysemous prototypical category, described in terms of family resemblances, a ....

....as common core to past reference, counterfactuality and politeness. Rather, he uses the notion of a polysemous prototypical category, described in terms of family resemblances, a polysemous category whose various meanings are linked, some through metaphor, some through metonymy, to a central sense (Taylor, 1989:147) He analyses past reference as the central sense of past tense; counterfactuality as metonymy (conventionalization of the implicature that past often implies that something no longer holds) and politeness as metaphor: time as space, involvement as distance proximity in space. 16 Of Of ....

Taylor, John R. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.

....in this view. Evolutionary linguistics throws a bridge across these two viewpoints from the latter to the former. Global, i.e. common in individuals, 1 Cognitive linguists often say that metaphor, and metonymy, are important when we consider linguistic categorization (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Taylor, 1995). structure described in the former view should be emerged as results of the process of using language and adaptation of its users. Note that the global structure in language should not be static. Change in internal structure by using language induces dynamics of the global structure This ....

....a cluster is likely to have flat top and graded boundary. If we think of is as a category, a flat top part corresponds to central members of the category and words having small relation with the central ones are peripheral members. This structure is like a prototype category (Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995). To what extent words are included in a category is a matter of gradient. The structure of cluster has characteristics of dynamical stability and adaptability. By uttering or accepting sentences in which usage of words are new or rare, directly concerned words move their positions in clustering ....

J. R. Taylor. 1995. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

.... BP1 9 k # 3 l KBP 7 F gradual i 9 O 7 7 F 4 j 35G0 G k 8l , I NDxEY k F 4 j KB0 7 F k ODxEYLdBj G k H 9M ( KBP1 9 k b N H J 5 l k # B: N 7 e l 7 g s G O 3 l i N2 o , 9 k , 3 l O W m H W F 4 j (Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995) H;w 9=B H9M ( i l k # 9 J o A flat JD:E O F 4 j NCf 4 a s P G = 3 i 8 g 8 g K F 4 j X5 B0 9 kEY9g , 5 J C F Cf 4 a s P H e 4X78 K k8l O F 4 j N 1oE J a s P G k # 3.2 8l4V4X78 H i 9 9=B N J 9 ....

J. R. Taylor. 1995. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

.... BP1 9 k # 3 l KBP 7 F gradual i 9 O 7 7 F 4 j 35G0 G k 8l , I NDxEY k F 4 j KB0 7 F k ODxEYLdBj G k H 9M ( KBP1 9 k b N H J 5 l k # B: N 7 e l 7 g s G O 3 l i N2 o , 9 k , 3 l O W m H W F 4 j (Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995) H;w 9=B H9M ( i l k # 9 J o A flat JD:E O F 4 j NCf 4 a s P G = 3 i 8 g 8 g K F 4 j X5 B0 9 kEY9g , 5 J C F Cf 4 a s P H e 4X78 K k8l O F 4 j N 1oE J a s P G k # 3.2 8l4V4X78 H i 9 9=B N J 9 ....

J. R. Taylor. 1995. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

....of mother is hugely cited. Word sense ambiguity can often be seen as a trace of the fundamental processes underlying language understanding (Sweetser, 1990) The structures underlying the distinct meanings of words are at the heart of the cognitive linguistics enterprise (Geeraerts, 1990; Taylor, 1989). Working in this framework, Cruse, 1995) gives a detailed typology of polysemy. He distinguishes polysemy, defined according to distinctness of meaning, from polylexy, which is where, in addition to distinctness of meaning, distinct lexical entries are required. A word is polysemous but not ....

Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. OUP, Oxford.

....in similarity from large to small (Fig. 4(c) This cluster has a peak. If we think of it as a category, a peak corresponds to the central member of a category. Words having small similarity with the central one are peripheral members of the category. This structure is like a prototype category [11, 12]. To what extent words are included in the category is matter of gradient. The two peak cluster (Fig. 4(d) is an analogue of a category with two central members. It can be regarded as a polysemous category. All words in a single peak structure are characterized by how similar they are to a ....

....categories have a flexibility 1 1 1 in being able to accommodate new, hitherto unfamiliar data. 1 1 1 New entries and new experiences can be readily associated, perhaps as peripheral members, to a prototype category, without necessarily causing any fundamental restructuring of the category system [12]. What, then, is the correspondence with a sentence making connection between clusters as shown in Fig. 7(c) One candidate is metaphorical expression. A metaphor connects two semantic domains. For example, in the sentence Sally is a block of ice, the domains of the human and nonhuman or of the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Taylor, J. R., (1995), Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press

....is likely to have a flat top and a graded boundary. In terms of categories, the flat top portion corresponds to central members of the category, and words having only a slight relation to the central words are peripheral members. This structure resembles that of a prototype category (Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995). 4.2 Dynamics of Word Relationships and Clusters Change of Word Relationships by New Usages. Word relationships change with conversations. We exemplify the transitions of the relationship of a word to other words in Fig. 3(a) This constitutes a portion of dynamics of the internal structure of an ....

J. R. Taylor. 1995. Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.

....similarity from large to small (Fig. 4(c) This cluster has a peak. If we think of it as a category, a peak corresponds to the central member of the category. Words having small similarity with the central one are peripheral members of the category. This structure is like a prototype category [11, 12]. To what extent words are included in the category is matter of gradient. The two peak cluster (Fig. 4(d) is an analogue of a category with two central members. It can be regarded as a polysemous category. All words in a single peak structure are characterized by how similar they are to a ....

....structure of the original clusters does not undergo large change. This satisfies the requirements for adaptability and stability of categorical system noted in x1 and shows resemblance, also in the context of dynamics, to the prototype category in its feature of flexibility, as expressed by Taylar [12] when he says: Prototype categories have a flexibility 1 1 1 in being able to accommodate new, hitherto unfamiliar data. 1 1 1 New entries and new experiences can be readily associated, perhaps as peripheral members, to a prototype category, without necessarily causing any fundamental ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Taylor, J. R., (1995), Linguistic Categorization -- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC