vdoc.pub_an-introduction-to-cognitive-linguistics

PROTOTYPES AND CATEGORIES 15
Set 1
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Set 2
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Set 3
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Figure 1.2 Shapes used by Rosch in prototype experiments (Rosch 1973) (Sets
2 and 3 reconstructed from Rosch’s description, letters added)
Such a description would be in full agreement with the notion of ‘good
forms’ as proposed by gestalt psychology (a school of psychology discussed
in more detail in Section 1.2). These good forms, i.e. squares, circles and
equilateral triangles, are assumed to be perceptually salient among geometrical
shapes.
Thus it is only natural that in a situation like the one described above
people will single out the square as a reference point for characterizing the
other drawings. Squares and the other good forms are therefore prime candidates
for ‘natural’ prototypes in the domain of geometrical shapes, similar
to the focal colours in colour space.
Using the kind of line drawings shown in Figure 1.2, Rosch (1973) sought
confirmation for the notion of prototypes in the domain of shapes. Prior
to the actual tests, she had to make sure that, as with colours, the Dani
had no category names or even conventional paraphrases at their disposal
which could bias them towards the supposed prototypes. This was verified
in a pilot study, which used the description method demonstrated
above: one test subject explaining the line drawings to another subject
who was sitting behind a screen and could not see them. Unlike educated
Western speakers, the Dani did not talk of squares and variations, but used
expressions like ‘It’s a pig’ or ‘It’s a broken fence’ for their description of
the drawings.
For the actual experiment, Rosch contrasted set 1 (the set with the prototype)
with other sets which were derived from the variations of set 1. Sets 2
and 3 in Figure 1.2 show two of the possible six alternative sets. Set 2 is