A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Categorisation is a central issue in Cognitive Linguistics, which is argued to be one of the primary principles of conceptual and linguistic organisation (Croft & Cruse, 2004). Classical categorisation and the prototype theory are two general approaches to categorisation. Since the classical categorisation approach was claimed to have certain drawbacks, most linguists working within the experimentalist mode of explanation use prototype categorisation as their primary way to account for their data. However, is the way people categorise items around them consistent across different cultures? This paper attempts to shed light on the answer to this question by comparing the prototype structures of four categories - bird, furniture, fruit, and vehicle - between English and Vietnamese. In order to find out the similarities and differences, the questionnaire data from 92 Vietnamese participants were collected to survey their rating of the goodness of exemplars. The data were then analysed by Google Form and compared to the available data from English respondents in the previous study of Rosch and Mervis (1975). Results revealed that the prototype structures were similar and different across the two cultures. That is why the teaching and learning of vocabulary should take into account cultural sensitivity.
Article Details
Keywords
cognitive linguistics, categorisation, classical categorisation, prototype categorisation
References
Ajalein, M., & Al-Khanji, R. (2020). Prototype semantic analysis of abstract and concrete concepts among Jordanian and American students. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(2). 148. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v12i2.16468
Auwera, J. V. D., & Gast, V. (2010). Categories and prototypes. In J. J. Song (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language typology (pp.166-189). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0010
Basile, J. (2007). Prototypes in Europe and North America: How they reflect gender and cultural differences. Retrieved on August 20, 2023 from Https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:5063/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. University of California Press.
Biria, R., & Bahadoran-Baghbaderan, A. (2016). Cross-cultural analysis of prototypicality norms used by male and female Persian and American speakers. Psycholinguist, 45(6), 1301-1314.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Holt.
Cambridge. (n.d.). Bird. In Dictionary.cambridge.org. Https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bird
Cambridge. (n.d.). Fruit. In Dictionary.cambridge.org. Https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/fruit?q=fruit
Cambridge. (n.d.). Furniture. In Dictionary.cambridge.org. Https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/furniture
Cambridge. (n.d.). Vehicle. In Dictionary.cambridge.org. Https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/vehicle
Croft, W. A., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Routledge.
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 54(3), 610-646.
Kucera, H. K., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Brown University Press.
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. J. Bailey, & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 340–371). Georgetown University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago University Press.
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141-144.
Noor, S., Omid, T., & Jawad, G. (2022). Simple Random Sampling. IJELS, 1(2), 78-82. Https://doi.org/10.22034/ijels.2022.162982
Oxford. (n.d.). Bird. In Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. Https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bird_1?q=bird
Oxford. (n.d.). Fruit. In Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. Https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fruit_1?q=fruit
Oxford. (n.d.). Furniture. In Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/furniture?q=furniture
Oxford. (n.d.). Vehicle. In Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/vehicle?q=vehicle
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. I., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 1-20.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382–439. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review, 37(3), 308-330.
Singh, S. (2003). Advanced sampling theory with applications: How Michael “selected” Amy. Kluwer Academic Publishers.