The Notion of Family Resemblance - Assignment Example

? Importance of cognitive psychology This article investigates the strength and the shortcomings of the notion of family resemblance features in the description of the linguistic representation of spatial relationships.In my essay am focusing on different aspects in relation to cognitive psychology. To begin with, cognitive psychology refers to the science of how the mind is organized to produce intelligent thought and how it is realized by the brain (John & Anderson, p.1). This essay focuses from an article by the name family resemblances. This article clearly illustrates about the various study categories involved in cognitive psychology. This article has been published severally and its first time of publish was in 1975. Looking from this article, we find that the involved participants came up with several experiments that mean to explore members of the categories that are well thought-out to be prototypical with most attributes in common with other members of the same category and least attributes with other categories. Basing our study on the probability point of view, we come across the various experiments that were take in this article in matters relating to cognitive psychology in family resemblances. Hypothesis clearly illustrates that prototypicality is a function of the total cue legality of the attributes of items From the first and third experiments, we find that high positive correlations between the ratings and to the extent of distribution of items attribute among the other items of the category. We also see that negative correlations between prototypicality and an items possession of attributes of members of contrasting categories .This research still used artificial categories. These categories show family resemblance within categories and shows lack of overlap of elements with contrasting categories. We find that this article is in support of grants to the first author named Eleanor Rosh Herder. Introduction In this essay, I will look at the methods and results that are applicable in cognitive psychology. To start with, cognition is a term that refers to everything that a human being can possibly do. On the other hand, cognitive psychology mainly focuses on the agenda of involving studies that in mental processes that include how people think and perceive. From psychology definition, we know that it involves a higher study of mental processes such as learning, memory and thinking. Referring from the article on family resemblances, we find there are various categories on cognitive psychology. Before we look into this, we also see the present research providing a processing model of the learning of categories or formation of prototypes. This actually tells us that the main reason behind the study of this research was to explore one of the major structural principles that we believe, may govern the formation of the prototype structure of semantic categories. This principle first suggests in philosophy; Wittgenstein argues that the referents of a word need not have common elements in order for the word to be understood and used in the normal functioning of language .He suggested that, rather, a family resemblance might be what linked the various referents of a word. A family resemblance relationship consists of a set of items of the form AB, BC, CD, DE. That is, each item has at least one, and probably several, elements in common with one or more other items, but no, or few, elements are common to all items. Personal traits and behaviours can be attached to their various role identities or can overlap in meaning with role identities (Peter, p.28). Natural semantic categories look like a network of overlapping attributes. The hypothesis in relation to this research under this category was to view each category as a prototypical as a whole in proportion to the extent to which the y bear a family resemblance to other members of the same category. Formal semantics doesn’t reveal and describe the meanings encoded in natural language or for comparison across various languages and cultures (Anna, p.8). Conversely, we see that these articles viewed as prototypical of one category are those with the minimal family resemblance should coincide rather than conflict since its reasonable that categories tend to become organized in such a way that they reflect the correlation structure of the environment in such a way that renders it maximally discriminable from each other. The present structural hypothesis closely related to a cue validity-processing model of classification. This is the validity of a cue defined in terms of its total frequency within a category and its proportional frequency in that category relative to contrasting categories. Mathematically, cue validity has been defined as a conditional probability-specifically, the frequency of a cue being associated with the category in question divided by the total frequency of that cue over all relevant categories. Unfortunately, cue validity treated as a model in conflict with a prototype model of category processing where prototypes operationally define solely as attribute means. Prototypes define more broadly for example, as the abstract representation of a category. They are also defined as a category to which subjects compare items when judging category membership, or as the internal structure of the category defined by subjects’ judgments of the degree to which members fit their “idea or image” of the category-then prototypes should coincide rather than conflict with cue validity. That is, if natural categories of concrete objects organize themselves to render the categories maximally discriminable from each other, it follows that the maximum possible cue validity of items within each category will be attained. The principle of family resemblance relationships is restated in terms of cue validity since the attributes most distributed among members of a category and least distributed among members .contrasting categories are, by definition, the most valid cues to membership in the category in question. We use the term family resemblance rather than cue validity primarily to emphasize that we are dealing with a description of structural principles and not with a processing model... Perceived resemblances between oneself and your parent provide information about someone’s life. Therefore those individuals who do not construct family resemblances may have fewer or different possible slaves (Peter, p.36). We believe that the principle of family resemblance relationships is a very general one and is applicable to categories regardless of whether or not they have features common to members of the category or formal criteria for category membership. Prototype theory The importance of this theory provides a more hospitable environment for the social categories. From this, article an author by the name Wittgenstein constructs the foundation of a concept. This author acknowledges the disparity that occurs within categories. We also see Rosh’s prototype concepts originate from cognitive psychology. (Eric, p.28).They also helps decide membership in a category through possession of different some properties. However, group membership does not require possession of all qualities. Context determines the actual meaning of a word. They also look at the conditions in a place at a particular moment to define the concept. We see that there are some crucial qualities of a context. These are some of them, incidental and essential. As a result, a router can process all processes typical to his or her group. It is of importance to note that membership in a category can be measured by the resemblance to an ideal example. It is in measure of possession of sufficient number of the typical features of the class. We can also apply prototype theory to sex and gender. Despite gender and sex being reality, the current cultural standards are majorly constrained by the man/woman binary. Therefore, the ambiguous group generally ends up in one category based on superficial appearance (Richard, p.76). Prototype conceptualization finds that indeed a network of qualities common to women exists yet none of these qualities is in requirement, in the provision that some of the features are typically present. Therefore, it is of importance to note that the possession of one’s entry into a group is not gender based. Thus, this concept avoids essentialist determinism but appreciates some kind of similarity .However; some characteristics can place a woman in her own category such as, absence of penis and presence of breasts. Discussion In my discussion found that, prototypes are forms in a number of ways. These methods include personal preferences and beliefs among others. Looking vividly on prototypes it is concerned with the notion of the prototype as an ideal representative of the set. A more inclusive prototype depends on the availability of models for people to perceive that influence their individual prototypes. Conceptualizations about this theory might change but it will call for dynamic and historically current concepts. Conclusion This theory on prototype may work on a theological aspect but can work as a technique for knowledge organization. The concepts of sex and gender as imagined using the prototype theory of concepts as a theoretical framework provides structural flexibility and inclusiveness. The “family resemblance” stabilizes terms enough to recognize the overarching idea, allows variation in particular instantiations, and accommodates overlap. However, does it provide enough stability to manage the “bureaucratic burden” required of it? Does the contextual sensitivity destroy any chance at constancy? Can it complement classical theory without losing the flexibility that makes it valuable? While prototype theory might work in theory, it manipulates to further offensive definitions as easily as desirable definitions. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether how to overcome the obstacles and how that flexibility could be sustained in a practical environment. References Daniel S. Goldberg Eschewing Definitions of the Therapeutic Misconception: A Family Resemblance Analysis Carroll, N. (2000). Theories of art today. Madison, Wis. [i.e.: Univ. of Wisconsin Press Corrigan, R., Eckman, F. R., & University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium. (1989). Linguistic categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s. Daley, K. (2007). Concepts as constructions: Structure, content, and innateness. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 68-11.) Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press Read More