Author:

Keywords:

metonymy, lexical semantics, prototypicality, Social Sciences, Linguistics, Language & Linguistics, 1701 Psychology, 1702 Cognitive Sciences, 2004 Linguistics, Languages & Linguistics, 4704 Linguistics, 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology

Abstract:

Misunderstandings are common, even among semanticists. Indeed, after having read William Croft's answer to our article, we believe that most of his criticisms arise from a misunderstanding of our intentions, and more broadly, of the type of model that we have developed. In this answer to Croft, we will first argue that our prototype model, as any prototype model in general, does not claim to put forward any necessary or sufficient attributes for the concept that it describes. Second, we will show that our use of contiguity is less controversial and less problematic than Croft claims. Third, we will counter Croft's criticism that our model is undermined by its own use of domains. Fourth, we will wrap up with some final remarks on Croft's defense of domain highlighting.