Abstract
Many criticisms of prototype theory and/or fuzzy-set theory are based on the assumption that category representativeness (or typicality) is identical with fuzzy membership. These criticisms also assume that conceptual combination and logical rules (all in the Aristotelian sense) are the appropriate criteria for the adequacy of the above “fuzzy typicality”. The present paper discusses these assumptions following the line of their most explicit and most influential expression by Osheron and Smith (1981). Several arguments are made against the above identification, the most important being that representativeness in prototype theory is exclusively based on element-to-element similarity while fuzzy membership is inherently an element-to-category relationship. Also the above criteria for adequacy are criticized from the viewpoint of both prototype theory and fuzzy-set theory as well as from that of both conceptual and logical combination, and also from that of integration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, V.: 1973, An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation, Longman, London.
Adelson, B.: 1985, ‘Comparing Natural and Abstract Categories: A Case Study from Computer Science’, Cognitive Science 9, 417–30.
Armstrong, S. L., L. R. Gleitman, and H. Gleitman: 1983, ‘What Some Concepts Might Not Be’, Cognition 13, 263–308.
Berlin, B. and P. Kay: 1969, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bloomfield, L.: 1933, Language, 11th British ed., G. Allen and Unwin, London, 1970.
Bolinger, D.: 1975, Aspects of Language, 2nd rev. ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Cantor, N., W. Mischel, and J. C. Schwartz: 1982, ‘A Prototype Analysis of Psychological Situations’, Cognitive Psychology 14, 45–77.
Cohen, B. and G. L. Murphy: 1984, ‘Models of Concepts’, Cognitive Science 8, 27–58.
Cohen, L. J.: 1981, ‘Can Human Irrationality be Experimentally Demonstrated?’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 317–70.
Dahlgren, K.: 1985, ‘The Cognitive Structure of Social Categories’, Cognitive Science 9, 379–98.
Dubois, D. and H. Prade: 1980, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Academic Press, New York.
Dubois, D. and H. Prade, 1985, ‘A Review of Fuzzy Set Aggregation Connectives’, Information Sciences 36, 85–121.
Fuhrmann, Gy.: 1988a, ‘Fuzziness of Concepts and Concepts of Fuzziness, Synthese 75, 349–72.
Fuhrmann, Gy.: 1988b, ‘“Prototypes” and “Fuzziness” in the Logic of Concepts’, Synthese 75, 317–47.
Fuhrmann, Gy.: 1988c, ‘M-Fuzziness in Brain/Mind Modelling’, in T. Zétényi (ed.), Fuzzy Sets in Psychology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 155–202. Reprinted (with technical corrections) in Cybernetica 32, 365–90 (1989).
Gleitman, L. R. and H. Gleitman: 1970, Phrase and Paraphrase; Some Innovative Uses of Languages, W. W. Norton, New York.
Goguen, J. A.: 1969, ‘The Logic of Inexact Concepts’, Synthese 19, 325–73.
Goguen, J. A.: 1974, ‘Concept Representation in Natural and Artificial Languages: Axioms, Extensions, and Applications for Fuzzy Sets’, Internal. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6, 513–61, reprinted in Mamdani, E. H. and B. R. Gaines (eds.): 1981, Fuzzy Reasoning and its Applications, Academic Press, New York, pp. 67–115.
Hampton, J. A.: 1982, ‘A Demonstration of Intransitivity in Natural Categories’, Cognition 12, 151–64.
Harper, W. L., R. Stalnaker, and G. Pearce (eds.): 1981, Ifs; Conditionals, Beliefs. Decision, Chance, and Time, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Heny, F.: (ed.): 1981, Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Herskovits, A.: 1985, ‘Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions’, Cognitive Science 9, 341–78.
Jespersen, O.: 1942, A Modern English Grammar; On Historical Principles, part VI, Morphology, G. Allen and Unwin, London, reprint (1954) by Bradford and Dickens, London.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.: 1983, Mental Models, Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge.
Jones, G. V.: 1982, ‘Stacks not Fuzzy Sets: An Ordinal Basis for Prototype Theory of Concepts’, Cognition 12, 281–90.
Kay, P. and K. Zimmer: 1976, ‘On the Semantics of Compounds and Genitives in English’, Sixth California Linguistics Association Conference Proceedings, pp. 29–35.
Kempton, W.: 1978, ‘Category Grading and Taxonomic Relations: A Mug is a Sort of a Cup’, American Ethnologist 5, 44–65.
Lees, R. B.: 1960, The Grammar of English Nominalization, Pub. No. 12, Indiana Univ. Res. Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Bloomington: reprinted, 1960, International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 3, part II: also by Mouton, The Hague, 5th ed., 1968.
Lees, R. B.: 1970, ‘Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of English Nominal Compounds’, in Bierwisch, M. and K. E. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 174–86.
Marchand, H.: 1969, The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. 2nd rev. ed., C. H. Beck, München.
Medin, D. L. and E. E. Smith: 1984, ‘Concepts and Concept Formation’, Annual Review of Psychology 35, 113–38.
Mervis, C. B. and E. Rosch: 1981, ‘Categorization of Natural Objects’, Annual Review of Psychology 32, 89–115.
Miller, G. A. and P. N. Johnson-Laird: 1976, Language and Perception, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Oden, G. C.: 1977, ‘Integration of Fuzzy Logical Information’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 565–75.
Osheron, D. N. and E. E. Smith: 1981, ‘On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts’, Cognition 9, 35–58.
Osheron, D. N. and E. E. Smith: 1982, ‘Gradedness and Conceptual Combination’, Cognition 12, 299–318.
Posner, M. I. and S. W. Keele: 1968, ‘On the Genesis of Abstract Ideas’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 77, 353–63.
Potter, M. and B. Faulconer: 1979, ‘Understanding Noun Phrases’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 509–22.
Reed, S. K.: 1972, ‘Pattern Recognition and Categorization’, Cognitive Psychology 3, 382–407.
Rosch, E.: 1973, ‘On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories’, in T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, Academic Press, New York, pp. 111–141.
Rosch, E.: 1975a, ‘Cognitive Reference Points’, Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–47.
Rosch, E.: 1975b, ‘Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104, 192–233.
Rosch, E. and B. B. Lloyd (eds.): 1978, Cognition and Categorization, Erlbaum. Hillsdale, N.J.
Rosch, E. and C. B. Mervis: 1975, ‘Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories’, Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., C. Simpson, and R. S. Miller: 1976, ‘Structural Basis of Typicality Effects’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2, 491–502.
Roth, E. M. and C. B. Mervis: 1983, ‘Fuzzy Set Theory and Class Inclusion Relations in Semantic Categories’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 509–25.
Smith, E. E. and D. N. Osheron: 1984, ‘Conceptual Combination with Prototype Concepts’, Cognitive Science 8, 337–61.
Tversky, A.: 1977, ‘Features of Similarity’, Psychological Review 84, 327–52.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1983, ‘Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment’, Psychological Review 90, 293–315.
Zadeh, L. A.: 1965, ‘Fuzzy Sets’, Information and Control 8, 338–53.
Zadeh, L. A.: 1975, ‘Calculus of Fuzzy Restructions’. in Zadeh, L. A., K. S. Fu, K. Tanaka and M. Shimura (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–39.
Zadeh, L. A.: 1976, ‘A Fuzzy Algorithm Approach to the Definition of Complex or Imprecise Concepts’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 8, 249–91.
Zadeh, L. A.: 1982, ‘A Note on Prototype Theory and Fuzzy Sets’, Cognition 12, 291–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fuhrmann, G. Note on the integration of prototype theory and fuzzy-set theory. Synthese 86, 1–27 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485412
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485412