Sources of typicality effects

Lakoff argues that typicality effects can arise in a range of ways from a number of different sources.

The simplest type of typicality effects.

Typicality effects can arise due to mismatches between ICMs against which particular concepts are understood. To illustrate, consider the ICM to which the concept BACHELOR relates. This ICM is likely to include information relating to a monogamous society, the institution of marriage and a standard marriageable age. It is with respect to this ICM, Lakoff argues, that the notion of BACHELOR is understood. Furthermore, because the background frame defined by an ICM is idealised, it may only partially match up with other cognitive models, and this is what gives rise to typicality effects. Consider the Pope, who is judged to be a poor example of the category BACHELOR. An individual’s status as a bachelor is an ‘all or nothing’ affair, because this notion is understood with respect to the legal institution of MARRIAGE: the moment the marriage vows have been taken, a bachelor ceases to be a bachelor. The concept POPE, on the other hand, is primarily understood with respect to the ICM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH whose clergy are unable to marry. Clearly, there is a mismatch between these two cognitive models: in the ICM against which BACHELOR is understood, the Pope is ‘strictly speaking’ a bachelor because he is unmarried. However, the Pope is not a prototypical bachelor precisely because the Pope is understood with respect to a CATHOLIC CHURCH ICM in which marriage of Catholic clergy is prohibited.

Typicality effects due to cluster models

According to Lakoff, there is a second way in which typicality effects can arise. This relates to cluster models, which are models consisting of a number of converging ICMs. The converging models collectively give rise to a complex cluster, which ‘is psychologically more complex than the models taken individually’ (Lakoff 1987: 74). Lakoff illustrates this type of cognitive model with the example of the category MOTHER, which he suggests is structured by a cluster model consisting of a number of different MOTHER subcategories.

These are listed below.

1. THE BIRTH MODEL: a mother is the person who gives birth to the child.

2. THE GENETIC MODEL: a mother is the person who provides the genetic

material for the child.

3. THE NURTURANCE MODEL: a mother is the person who brings up and

looks after the child.

4. THE MARITAL MODEL: a mother is married to the child’s father.

5. THE GENEALOGICAL MODEL: a mother is a particular female ancestor.

While the category MOTHER is a composite of these distinct sub-models, Lakoff argues that we can, and often do, invoke the individual models that contribute to the larger cluster model. The following examples reveal that we can employ different models for MOTHER in stipulating what counts as a ‘real mother’ (Lakoff 1987: 75).

(1) a. BIRTH MODEL

I was adopted and I don’t know who my real mother is.

b. NURTURANCE MODEL

I am not a nurturant person, so I don’t think I could ever be a real mother to my child.

c. GENETIC MODEL

My real mother died when I was an embryo, and I was later frozen and implanted in the womb of the woman who gave birth to me.

d. BIRTH MODEL

I had a genetic mother who contributed the egg that was planted in the womb of my real mother, who gave birth to me and raised me.

e. BIRTH MODEL

By genetic engineering, the genes in the egg my father’s sperm fertilised were spliced together from genes in the eggs of twenty different women. I wouldn’t call any of them my real mother. My real mother is the woman who bore me, even though I don’t have any single genetic mother.

Lakoff argues that cluster models give rise to typicality effects when one of the ICMs that contributes to the cluster is viewed as primary. This results in the other subcategories being ranked as less important: ‘When the cluster of models that jointly characterize a concept diverge, there is still a strong pull to view one as the most important’ (Lakoff 1987: 75). This is reflected in dictionary definitions, for example, which often privilege one of the MOTHER sub-models over the others. Although many dictionaries treat the BIRTH MODEL as primary, Lakoff found that Funk and Wagnall’s Standard Dictionary selected the NURTURANCE MODEL while the American College Dictionary chose the GENEALOGICAL MODEL.

Typicality effects due to metonymy

Lakoff argues that a third kind of typicality effect arises when an exemplar(an individual instance) stands for an entire category. The phenomenon whereby one conceptual entity stands for another is called metonymyand is explored in much more detail in the next chapter. To illustrate metonymy consider example (2):

(2) Downing Street refused comment.

In this example, the official residence of the British Prime Minister stands for the Prime Minister. In other words, it is the Prime Minister (or his or her press officer) who refuses to comment.

A metonymic ICM can be a subcategory, as in the case of one of the subcategories of a cluster model, or an individual member of a category that comes to stand for the category as a whole. An important consequence of this is that the metonymic model, by standing for the whole category, serves as a cognitive reference point, setting up norms and expectations against which other members of the category are evaluated and assessed. It follows that metonymic ICMs give rise to typicality effects, as other members of the category are judged as atypical relative to the metonymic model.

An example of a metonymic ICM is the cultural stereotype HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER, in which a married woman does not have paid work but stays at home and looks after the house and family. The HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER stereotype can

give rise to typicality effects when it stands for, or represents, the category MOTHER as a whole. Typicality effects arise from resulting expectations associated with members of the category MOTHER. According to the HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER stereotype, mothers nurture their children, and in order to do this they stay at home and take care of them. A WORKING MOTHER, by contrast, is not simply a mother who has a job, but also one who does not stay at home to look after her children. Hence the HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER model, by metonymically representing the category MOTHER as a whole, serves in part to define other instances of the category such as WORKING MOTHER, which thus emerges as a non-prototypical member of the category.

Lakoff proposes a number of different kinds of metonymic models, any of which can in principle serve as a cognitive reference point and can thus give rise to typicality effects. We briefly outline some of these below.

Social stereotypes

The HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER model is an example of a social stereotype. These are conscious ICMs which emerge from public discussion. Against this background, we can re-evaluate the category BACHELOR. The stereotypical bachelor in our culture is a womaniser who lacks domestic skills. Typicality effects can arise if a particular bachelor contrasts with this stereotype. For instance, an unmarried man with one sexual partner who enjoys staying at home cooking and takes pride in his housework may be judged atypical with respect to the social stereotype for bachelors. This shows how the social stereotype BACHELOR, which represents one element in the category BACHELOR, can stand for the category as a whole thus giving rise to typicality effects.

Typical examples

Typicality effects can also arise in relation to typical examplesof a particular category. For instance, in some cultures ROBIN and SPARROW are typical members of the category BIRD. This is because in some parts of the world these birds are very common. In this respect, our environment has consequences for what we judge as good examples of a category. Furthermore, Lakoff argues that we may evaluate a member of the category bird with respect to a typical example. In this way, typicality effects arise when the typical example stands for the entire category.

Ideals

Lakoff suggests that some categories are understood in terms of ideals, which may contrast with typical or stereotypical instances. For example, we might have an ideal for the category POLITICIAN: someone who is public-spirited, altruistic, hardworking and so on. This may contrast with our stereotype of politicians as egotistical, power-hungry and obsessed with ‘spin’. Once more, typicality effects occur when the ideal stands metonymically for the entire category. For instance, with respect to our ideal the utterance He’s a great politician might be interpreted as a positive evaluation. However, with respect to our social stereotype, the same utterance would be interpreted as a negative evaluation.

Paragons

Individual category members that represent ideals are paragons. For instance, David Beckham, arguably the world’s best-known soccer star, is good-looking, a committed father, glamorous, married to a pop star and captain of the England team, as well as being one of the world’s most successful footballers. For many people around the world, Beckham represents a FOOTBALL paragon. Similarly, Rolls-Royce represents a paragon in terms of LUXURY CARS, Nelson Mandela represents a paragon in terms of POLITICAL LEADERS, Winston Churchill in terms of WAR LEADERS, Noam Chomsky in terms of GENERATIVE LINGUISTS, and so on. Because paragons stand for an entire category, they set up norms and expectations against which other members of the category may be evaluated.

For instance, the comment, ‘He’s no Nelson Mandela’ about a particular political leader may represent a negative assessment as to the leader’s altruism and so forth. In this way, paragons give rise to typicality effects.

Generators

According to Lakoff, members of some categories are ‘generated’ by a core subset of category members called generators. These generators are judged to be more prototypical than the other category members that they generate. For example, the natural numbers are represented by the set of integers between zero and nine, which are combined in various ways in order to produce higher natural numbers. For instance, the number 10 combines the integers 1 and 0. Thus the entire category NATURAL NUMBERS is generated from a small subset of single-digit integers.

Lakoff argues that this is why the numbers 1 to 9 are judged as prototypical members of the category NATURAL NUMBERS than much larger numbers. Another example of a set of generators is Morse Code. In this system the generators are the ‘dot’ and the ‘dash’. While the ‘dot’ represents the letter ‘E’, the ‘dash’ represents the letter ‘T’. Because all other letters represent combinations of dots and/or dashes, the ‘letters’ ‘E’ and ‘T’ are likely to be more prototypical than the others for regular Morse Code users.

Salient examples

Finally, memorable or salient examplescan also give rise to a type of metonymic ICM. For instance, Oxford University is a salient example of a university, in part due to its history (it received its royal charter in the thirteenth century), in part due to the esteem in which its teaching and scholarship have traditionally been held and in part due to the nature of the colleges that make up the university, both in terms of the structure of the institution and its architecture.

Although in many ways atypical in terms of British and other international higher education institutions, people, particularly in the United Kingdom, often rely upon Oxford as a point of comparison for other universities. Typicality effects occur when Oxford serves to establish a means of evaluating and assessing another university.

In other words, salient examples, like prototypes in general, provide cognitive reference points that not only structure a category metonymically, but can influence the decisions we make, for instance whether we decide to go to a particular university based on how similar it is to a salient example like Oxford.

Table 8.10 provides a summary of some of the types of metonymic ICMs proposed

by Lakoff.

In sum, Lakoff argues that cluster models and metonymic ICMs can give rise to typicality effects in different ways. While the cluster model provides a converging cluster of cognitive models which gives rise to typicality effects by ranking one of the subcategories as more important than the others in the cluster, a metonymic model can stand for the category as a whole and gives rise to typicality effects by defining cultural expectations relating to this category.

Radial categories as a further source of typicality effects

Lakoff proposes that the cluster model for MOTHER and the metonymic HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER stereotype taken together contribute to a composite prototypefor MOTHER: a prototype derived from two models. This prototype provides representative structurefor the category. For example, the composite prototype for the category MOTHER includes a female who gave birth to the child, was supplier of 50 per cent of the genetic material, stayed at home in order to nurture the child, is married to the child’s father, is one generation older than the child and is also the child’s legal guardian. In other words, the composite prototype

draws upon information from the BIRTH MODEL, the GENETIC MODEL, the NURTURANCE MODEL, the MARITAL MODEL, the GENEALOGICAL MODEL and the HOUSEWIFE MODEL, which is a social stereotype. This type of prototype is an idealization which provides schematic information. Importantly, further models can be derived from this composite prototype. These models include ADOPTIVE MOTHER, FOSTER MOTHER, BIRTH MOTHER and SURROGATE MOTHER.

As Lakoff points out:

These variants are not generated from the central model by general rules; instead, they are extended by convention and must be learned one by one. But the extensions are by no means random. The central model determines the possibilities for extensions, together with the possible relations between the central model and the extension models. (Lakoff 1987: 91)

A composite prototype and extensions of this kind are modelled in terms of a radiating lattice structure. The composite prototype is positioned centrally with other subcategories represented as extending from the central case(see Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2 Radial network for the category MOTHER

subcategories of MOTHER listed below are all understood in terms of how they diverge from the central case.

1. STEPMOTHER – married to the father but didn’t supply genetic material or give birth.

2. ADOPTIVE MOTHER – provides nurturance and is the legal guardian. 3. BIRTH MOTHER – gave birth and supplied genetic material but put the child up for adoption hence does not nurture the child and has no legal responsibilities.

4. FOSTER MOTHER – charged by the state to nurture the child but is not the child’s legal guardian.

5. SURROGATE MOTHER – gives birth to the child, typically does not supply the genetic material and has no other obligations to the child.

Thus radial categories of this kind provide a fourth way in which typicality effects can arise. These effects occur when the subcategories are seen to deviate from the composite prototype. Moreover, as particular categories can become more conventionalised than others, different subcategories in a radial category can develop different degrees of prototypicality.

Importantly, radial categories are not ‘generators’. The central case does not productively generate new subcategories of the MOTHER category. While the subcategories are motivatedin the sense that they are licensed by the prototype, this is a consequence of our cultural experience. For instance, the subcategory SURROGATE MOTHER is a consequence of recent achievements in medicine and cultural trends and has appeared in the second half of the twentieth century.

In sum, radial categories are motivated, but knowing a prototype does not predict what subcategories will become conventionally adopted in the culture.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1499