Skip to main content
Log in

Lexical misunderstandings and prototype theory

  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper uses examples of conversational understandings, misunderstandings and non-understandings to explore the role of prototypes and schemata in conversational understanding. An investigation of the procedures by which we make sense of lexical items in utterances by fitting prototypes into schemata is followed by an examination of how schemata are instantiated across conversational sequences by means of topics. In interaction, conflicts over meaning illuminate the decisive role of social and cultural factors in understanding. Overall, understanding is seen to be critically dependent on principles of categorisation and contrast, which form the basis of both cognitive and sociocultural means of organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R.C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro and W.E. Montague (eds.),Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (1997). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (ed.).Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M.M. [1934] (1981).The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, eds. and trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F.C. (1932).Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B and Kay, P. (1969)Basic Color Terms: their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D. and Johnson, M.K. (1973). Consideration of some problems of comprehension. In W.G. Chase (ed.),Visual Information Processing, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983).Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process.Cognition 22(1). 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. (1981).Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray, N.L. and McNeill, D. (1990). Gestures during discourse: the contextual structuring of thought. In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.),Meanings and Prototypes: studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (1997).Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1982). Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and pepper: social construction of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-Americans. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1981, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esau, H. (1982). The ‘smoking gun’ tape: analysis of the information structure in the Nixon tapes.Text 2. 4, 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, D. (1977). Same setting, different norms: phone call beginnings in France and the United States.Language in Society. 6(2). 209–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, W.F. (1957). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In D. Hymes (ed.), (1964)Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds),Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984).Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983).Mental Models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and conciousness. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980).Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.),Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. (1977).Semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.A. (1978). Practical and lexical knowledge. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.),Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (ed.),The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, W.J. (1977).Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, R. (1985)Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me: discourse context, focus, and semantics (an ATN model). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesbeck, C.K. and Schank, R.C. (1978). Comprehension by computer: expectation-based analysis of sentences in context. In W.J.M. Levelt and G.B. Flores d'Arcais (eds.),Studies in the Perception of Language. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology. 4:328–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M. and Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology 8:382–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A.S.C. and Mitford, N. (1956).Noblesse Oblige. London: Hamish Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D.E. (1983) Understanding understanding. In H. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds.), Psycholinguistic Models of Production. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In M. Sanches and B. Blount (eds.),Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R and Abelson, R. (1977).Scripts, Plans and Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A. (1972a). Sequencing in conversational openings. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • (1972b). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In D. Sudnow (ed.),Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation.Language. 53. 361–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (1983).Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svartvik, J. and Quirk, R. (1980).A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. (1981). Understanding and the limits of formal thinking. In H. Parret and J. Bouveresse (eds.),Meaning and Understanding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953)Philosophical Investigations, ed. and trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Clift.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clift, R. Lexical misunderstandings and prototype theory. AI & Soc 12, 109–133 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206192

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206192

Keywords

Navigation