Talk:Prototype theory

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophieroth21. Peer reviewers: BlandK, Davmca97, JBalcita.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

This article states, "Prototype Theory is a model of graded categorization in Cognitive Science, where all members of a category do not have equal status." But this point is directly denied by Lakoff, citing Rosch, in the article "Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory" in Concepts: Core Readings, MIT Press, 1999. There, he clearly states that goodness-of-example ratings (a prototype effect) do not reflect degree of category membership. He cites Rosch on the same point. The whole article seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Or maybe the problem is just with the ambiguous phrase 'equal status'. Is this referring to category membership or merely degree of prototypicality? --Mediaphd 22:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stereotypes

In cognitive linguistics, a prototype is not the same as a conventional stereotype. Not even close. Rosch has defined the word prototype quite rigorously and exhaustively, resulting in a specific definition bearing little resemblence to the common idea of a stereotype. Someone please fix this blatant error.

OK, could you be more specific, please, concerning the difference? Or, are you splitting hairs?--Wiglaf 19:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Broken formatting

Er, the article formatting is broken; I'd try fixing it myself, except I'm not sure what it's supposed to look like. WindAndConfusion 07:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure problem

I could not understand the following sentence and am not sure what the author meant it say but there seem to be more than one grammatical error so I'd request the author to re-write rather than someone guessing what it was supposed to say: "Molesworth, Bowler, and Hampton (2005) found signs of the prototype effect is children with autism and Asperger syndrome showed signs of prototype effects, yet the effects were not diminished from children without autism or Asperger syndrome."--AnthonyTF 13:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible critique?

Personally, I am a big fan of prototype theory but I think this entry could be enriched by adding a section on critique. Anyone want to add that? The article "Prospects and Problems with Prototype Theory" by Dirk Geeraerts (2016) might be one place to start?--AnthonyTF 13:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of problems with Prototype theory section

It might be beneficial to consider creating a new section detailing some of the issues with prototype theory and/or other cognitive theories.

Sources to consider:

Laurence, Stephen & Margolis, Eric (1999). Concepts and Cognitive Science. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), _Concepts: Core Readings_. MIT Press. pp. 3-81.

Putnam, Hilary (1975). Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmundt (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]