THE “COMPETENT COMMUNICATOR” AS A COGNITIVE PROTOTYPE

Past theories concerned with communicative competence have assumed that perceiver's evaluations of the competence of a communicative performance are based on a conception of the “ideal communicator.” Psychological theory on categorization implies that this assumption is most viable if conceptions of “prototypes” relevant to competence in general (“the communicatively competent person”) are rich in defining characteristics relative to their logical superordinate (“the skilled person”), yet distinct from other skill-related prototypes (such as “the artistically talented person”), and if conceptions of prototypes relevant to competence in specific interactive situations are also relatively rich in defining characteristics, but similar to one another. Analysis of freely elicited lists of characteristics for categories within a taxonomic hierarchy for skill support these implications, showing that people's conceptions of “communicative competence” are organized in the manner most conducive to their use as the basis for competence evaluation. Results also point out the critical role played by concrete, rather than abstract, characteristics in differentiating among general and situation-specific prototypes.

[1]  Charles Pavitt,et al.  Implicit theories of communicative competence: Situational and competence level differences in judgments of prototype and target , 1986 .

[2]  Charles Pavitt,et al.  Preliminaries to a Theory of Communication: A System for the Cognitive Representation of Person and Object Based Information , 1981 .

[3]  David R. Brandt,et al.  On Linking Social Performance with Social Competence: Some Relations between Communicative Style and Attributions of Interpersonal Attractiveness and Effectiveness. , 1979 .

[4]  Robert W. Norton,et al.  Foundation of a Communicator Style Construct. , 1978 .

[5]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? , 1978 .

[6]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[7]  G. Oden Fuzziness in semantic memory: Choosing exemplars of subjective categories , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[8]  John M. Wiemann,et al.  EXPLICATION AND TEST OF A MODEL OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE , 1977 .

[9]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Subjective Structures and Operations in Semantic Memory. , 1976 .

[11]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[13]  Janet H. Walker Real-world variability, reasonableness judgments, and memory representations for concepts , 1975 .

[14]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. , 1974 .

[15]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations , 1973 .

[16]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Pattern recognition and categorization , 1972 .

[17]  O. Holsti Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities , 1969 .

[18]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  F. Attneave,et al.  Transfer of experience with a class-schema to identification-learning of patterns and shapes. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  T. Wonnacott,et al.  Introductory statistics for business and economics , 1972 .

[21]  F. Heider The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .