Semantics: Prototype Theory using Birds

Everything we see around us or every word we utter has a different meaning and by meaning we can say that it is a list of properties. The meanings then can be compared and categorized into different groups each with their unique properties. The word meanings are stored as the properties of a prototype. From our basic knowledge, we can say that prototype is a unit representing a set of typical features. For example, chair can a prototype for furniture since it fulfills almost all of the typical features of a prototype; that is, it is either made of wood/metal, it has four legs, used to sit on etc.

We can make a list of these ‘typical features’ and match the features of a particular object with the list and see if we can place it anywhere within the list. In other words, we measure the typicality of the object. There is a reason why we have to see where we ‘can place’ the object within the list. The position of an object is not always concrete or fixed. The position will depend on how many matches we get. Some objects are much more centralized – meaning they have more or less all the properties. Others are not so clear. Some of the properties may match whereas others may be completely different. Let’s look at the prototype of mammals.

• ·         They have limbs
• ·         They give birth
• ·         They have hair on their body
• ·         They live on land
• ·         They have mammary glands and etc.

We can see that human beings fulfill most of the criteria and are therefore placed at the center of the circle. On the other hand, whales are also considered to be mammals but they hardly come close to these basic characteristics. So, this strategy of grouping based off characteristics is usually called the Prototype Theory.

The Prototype Theory was first proposed by Eleanor Rosch, who was a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. Following her footsteps, we will try to conduct a research on our own set of birds and try to categorize them accordingly. The ones with the highest number of matches will be considered a ‘true’ bird and will be at the top of the list and the ones will the least number of matches will be at the bottom.

We decided to use, as we like to call it, the rearrangement method. In the process, we write down the names of the selected birds on small cheats of paper and tell a group of people to rearrange them as they see fit with the goal to rate them from the most birdlike to the least birdlike.

Before getting into the experiment, we made a list of possible characteristics for birds. A typical true bird may have the following features:

List of birds

Crow

Sparrow

Parrot

Owl

Pigeon

Duck

Chicken

Ostrich

Kingfisher

Bat

• ·         It has feathers
• ·         It has wings
• ·         It can fly
• ·         It has hollow bones
• ·         It has talons
• ·         It is light in weight and so on.
• ·         They are usually insectivores.
• ·         They lay eggs

Firstly, small paper cut in the form of cheats were made with the name of a specific bird written on them. We chose the birds on the adjacent list. Then a group of fifteen of our fellow students were gathered up and we mentioned the features of a typical bird to them. After that, we asked each of them to rearrange the cheats in the order they find the bird to be the most bird-like to the least bird-like. We also took part in the rearrangement process. After the grouping is done, we made sure to jot down all the newly formed lists before finally compiling and comparing them.

Each of their results were different with a bit of similarities here and there. According to the research, most of the participants selected “crow” as the most bird-like and “bat” as the least birdlike. On the other hand, the birds – Sparrow, Parrot and Pigeon – got high typical rating and the birds – Ostrich, Duck, Chicken and Kingfisher – got the least typical rating and “Owl” was somewhere in the middle mostly.

Some of the birds we used for this research was also on Rosch’s list, such as, sparrow, parrot, owl etc. If we compare our results with that Eleanor Rosch, we can find some interesting occurrences. For example, in her experiment, “parrot” was given a middle/average rating whereas in our experiment, it got a high typical rating. However, certain birds like the sparrow, the owl and the bat have similar positions in our experiment as that of Rosch’s.

We believe, people mostly rearranged their ideal type of birds according to familiarity. The bird they are most familiar with or know and recognize very well got higher ratings than those which they have not seen or heard of but can only imagine. Because, even though Kingfisher had more characteristic features to a typical bird, it was way below on the list whereas Crow was the most ideal type even though it’s feeding habit is more of an omnivore. But since people are more used to seeing Crows instead of the other mentioned birds and it fills up almost every criteria of being a bird, people chose Crow as the most typical bird. Now if we compare this to Rosch’s experiment, we can see that her participants chose robin as the most typical.

The birds Robin and Crow are completely different from each other in terms of species. Robin is a small bird with a melodious voice but Crow is a large bird black bird with a very harsh voice. However, both of them fulfills the criteria we have set up beforehand for a typical bird. Both of them have wings and feathers and can fly.

Again, if we look at the high typical rating birds – Sparrow, Parrot and Pigeon – we can also notice some differences. For example, sparrows are very brownish birds with a straight pointy beak. But, a parrot is a vibrantly colorful bird with a curved red beak. Then again, pigeons are larger bird with colors ranging from white to grey. So, even though there are clear physical differences, they were rated almost the same position.

We can say the same thing for the low typical rated birds. In fact, based on physical appearances, they should be on largely separated spectrum. For example, duck and chicken are domesticated birds, but ducks can swim and chicken can barely do that. Chickens can’t even fly, which is one of the main feature of a bird. Again, kingfishers are small birds but are very flashy in terms of color. But it can neither swim like ducks and can fly unlike chickens. Yet, it was placed almost on the same spectrum as them. Ostrich, on the other hand, is quite a large bird, almost larger than a typical mammal. It can neither fly nor swim but can run very fast. But it was placed around chickens, ducks and kingfishers.

The average typical rating – Owl – has some interesting properties as well. It is brown or grey in color like Sparrows; has a curved beak like a Parrot; larger in size like a Crow or Pigeon; and most importantly, unlike the other birds on this list, owls are nocturnal animals just like bats. So, even though owls satisfy quite a large number of properties of an ideal bird, at the same time, it shows some of its unique features. Yet, it was placed in the middle instead towards the top of the bottom.

Now this brings us to the question: if the prototype of any given category is universal? Well, as we can see from the above experiment, some species can we fall into a certain category even though it does not have all the basic characteristics. Ostrich is a bird that can’t fly. These animals fall between the grey areas that might exist between two distinct parts. Also if we look at hens, these common birds will be termed as a very ‘true’ bird if the question was placed in front of a common person. But these birds can’t fly as well, going against the very basic characteristic that defines a bird.

We also saw that how something is termed as ‘true’ depends on the region. In our country, crow is a very common bird and at the top of the list because it is so common in the region. This might not true if we go to Europe and such. Some migratory birds such as the Whistling Teal is not common in our region. They are usually found in mountainous regions.

From our research, we have concluded that the prototype of the given category is not universal. The mere fact that all birds cannot be put into the same position is a big evidence of that. A common feature of a bird is that it can fly. However, if we look at chicken, it hardly flies. That doesn’t cast a doubt on our minds. We will still consider this to be a bird. If the prototype was universal then we wouldn’t consider chicken to be a bird, because it doesn’t fulfill an important criterion.

Not only that, we have also found that people base their idea of characteristic features to an object they are most familiar with. For example, Crow was rated as the most typical bird even though as per definitive characteristics, sparrow seemed to be more ideal. Also, in Rosch’s experiment, Robin was called the most typical bird. But if we ask about Robin here in Bangladesh, we will find that most people do not even know what type of bird it is. Therefore it can be said that the prototype of a category in not universal. If it was universal, we would see the same birds, each having the same characteristics all over the world but this is hardly the case.

This post is co-written with Ummedun Nessa