The author insinuates his idea about categorization of things we perceived by senses, would it be in different entities or elements based on how we viewed it as human with background and experience. He pointed out the use of Aristotelian logic to describe one thing, setting bird as a good example. Yes, the author perfectly mentioned how we see bird based on how described it as it has feathers, lays egg and it flies. The point of giving such plenty of description sounds helpful for us if we are in a situation remember the word “bird” and that in a simple description we can simply remember or recall it easily.
But sometimes we must be careful in describing as bird becomes the example because in biology especially studying taxonomy or the practice of classifying plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships or its characteristics, there are birds cannot fly. The point of the article is that we must be careful in giving prototypes or in layman’s term an example because we have a different interpretation when it comes to giving meaning, simply because we have our individual learning experiences in viewing things, people, idea, action or any state of being.
The author also mention about chair and table as a prototypical piece of furniture. The idea of mentioning table and chair simply set our minds that they are a good example of furniture. With this, we need to be aware of other people’s culture because some countries like Japan do not have the same interpretation and they viewed it differently compare to Europe and America.
Practically, the idea of furniture is too broad. So, if we need to be understood by others, it is better to go for a specific example that is instead of saying furniture, much better to use chair or table. I admit that they are part of the category but the problem is, it’s too ambiguous. Actually, the author has mentioned different prototypes with the issues involved.
Therefore, this must be given an attention by professional particularly for those who are studying the English language. This is simply because even the author admitted the idea that since prototypes arose, it becomes clear to linguists and other scientists that category boundaries are not clear but fuzzy or confused and not coherent; not clearly taught out to the learners.