A reassessment of the shift from the classical theory of concepts to prototype theory

A standard view within psychology is that there have been two important shifts in the study of concepts and that each has led to some improvements. The first shift was from the classical theory of concepts to probabilistic theories, the most popular of which is prototype theory. The second shift was from probabilistic theories to theory-based theories. In this article, I take exception with the view that the first shift has led to any kind of advance. I argue that the main reasons given for preferring prototype theory over the classical theory are flawed and that prototype theory suffers some of the same problems that have been thought to challenge the classical theory.

[1]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[2]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[3]  J. Fodor.  The Language of Thought , 1980 .

[4]  F. Moore.  Cognitive development and the acquisition of language , 1973 .

[5]  Douglas L Medin,et al.  The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Volume 30 , 1993 .

[6]  William P. Alston,et al.  Knowledge and the Flow of Information , 1985 .

[7]  Christopher Gauker.  Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language , 1987 .

[8]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  A psychological approach to concepts: Comments on Rey's “Concepts and stereotypes” , 1984, Cognition.

[9]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Will the real grandmother please stand up? The psychological reality of dual meaning representations , 1982 .

[10]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[11]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[12]  Peter H. Salus,et al.  Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism , 1987 .

[13]  Georges Rey.  Concepts and conceptions: A reply to Smith, Medin and Rips , 1985, Cognition.

[14]  Howard Evans Kiefer,et al.  Language, belief, and metaphysics , 1970 .

[15]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  WHAT'S IN A WORD? ON THE CHILD'S ACQUISITION OF SEMANTICS IN HIS FIRST LANGUAGE , 1973 .

[16]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Naming and Necessity , 1980 .

[17]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction , 1989 .

[18]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[19]  U. Neisser.  Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[20]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts , 1987 .

[21]  Elizabeth F. Shipley,et al.  Categories, hierarchies, and induction , 1993 .

[22]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Mental models of word meaning , 1983 .

[23]  H. Putnam.  IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE , 1970 .

[24]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[25]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[26]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.

[27]  Georges Rey.  Concepts and stereotypes , 1983, Cognition.

[28]  C. K. Ogden,et al.  The Meaning of Meaning , 1923 .

[29]  J. Hampton.  An investigation of the nature of abstract concepts , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[30]  D L Medin,et al.  Concepts and conceptual structure. , 1989, The American psychologist.