SEMANTICS-11: Theories of Concepts (2)

7 thoughts on “SEMANTICS-11: Theories of Concepts (2)”

1. Your teaching is wonderfully clear and logical!!! Thank you so much!! I️ wish more Professors taught in such a logical manner!!

2. Wonderfully clear explanation. Thank you very much

3. 😉 good I get it 👍

4. Dear Sir
   As you have said there are problems in the prototype theory regarding the inclusion of penguin into a 'bird category' or 'animals that swim', how can that theory solve the problem of fuzziness and asymmetry?
   I would be highly privileged if you give me an answer.
   Regards
   Saji Krishna Pillai

5. السلام عليكم : دكتور جهودك مشكورة ، متابع لك من الموصل / العراق .

6. A bat
   Is mammal ☹️

7. Regarding the classical theory, if some elements belonging to a word-set do not validate each given characteristic it doesn't mean that using characteristics is a bad way of defining a word, it simply means that the characteristics were not chosen wisely in the first place. In your example, "able to fly" should never have been a characteristic for bird in the first place. Moreover, in the prototypes theory, what determines wether an element is closely or loosely related to an exemplar are still characteristics/conditions. Thus, the Prototypes theory doesn't solve a problem, it just blends it into some rigor-lacking ideas. Also bats are most defenitely not birds.

Comments are closed.