Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by...
-
Upload
griselda-garrison -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
2
Transcript of Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by...
![Page 1: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Language and thought
![Page 2: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Relationship of cognition and language
• Categories of cognition are shaped by language– Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity
• Cognitive categories develop independently of language both in evolution and in ontogeny, language only builds upon these– Piaget: cognitive development leads language development
• Language and cognition are independent– Chomsky
• Cognition follows its own path, but language modulates its categories
![Page 3: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Early experiments
1. language = thoughtBehaviorism• Watson, 1913: thought =
subvocal speech
2. language ≠ thought
• Smith et al., 1947: curare experiment: muscle relaxant
![Page 4: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Political correctness“language use has an effect on the way we think”
• euphemisms in politics– Pacification/pacifikáció = bombázás– Revenue increase/bevételnövelés = adó– Rationalisation/munkaerő-gazdálkodás = elbocsátások
• social movements: sexist/racist etc. language is responsible for sexist/racist etc. thinking– chairman → chairperson
– Gypsy → Roma (?)
– blind → with visual impairment
• Orwell, 1984: Newspeak
![Page 5: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Language shapes the mind
• linguistic determinism: a language shapes psychological mechanisms
• Benjamin Lee Whorf• Language shapes the mind, world view, structure of science• Differences in lexical (vocabulary) and grammatical organization
result in different conceptual schemes
![Page 6: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Whorf: linguistic determinism and relativity
• Linguist and engineer, student of anthropologist Edward Sapir– Studied native American cultures and languages– Emphasized the variety and differences of cultures, not
the common features• Strong view: all higher forms of thought build on language• Weak view: the structure of the language one generally
uses influences the way they understand their environment and act upon in it
![Page 7: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Linguistic relativity (the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis)
• Follows from linguistic determinism• Linguistic relativity: distinctions encoded in one
language are unique to that language alone, and "there is no limit to the structural diversity of languages”– It is impossible to translate precisely from one language to
another
• lexical and grammatical relativity
![Page 8: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Lexical influences• Lexical level: what words are found in a given language,
and what they refer to– different languages carve up the world in different ways
through more or less specialized vocabularies– languages differ with respect to how they divide up the world
into nouns and verbs• lightning: a N in English, but a V in Hopi
– duration an important feature
• Tzotzil Mayan: eat-mushy; eat-a-slender-shape-food, eat-meat
– the properties of objects are incorporated into the verbs
![Page 9: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Grammatical influences on thinking• Number category
– whether inanimate nouns can be pluralized or not– in English any noun can be pluralized as long as the referent
is discrete, i.e., mass nouns such as paper, flour cannot be pluralized
• count nouns such as pen, girl
– in Yucatec, only animate nouns can be pluralized– Lucy (1992): English speakers specify the number of objects
in descriptions of line drawings more frequently than Yucatec speakers
![Page 10: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Grammatical influences
• Tense markers– determine location of events in time
• past ---------- now ---------- future– he is running– he ran WARI in Hopi– he will run
• How does a temporal language compare to a “timeless language”?
![Page 11: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tense
• Hopi distinguishes between– Reportive: report of a recent or ongoing event– Expective: report of an expected event (past or future)– Nomic (not described)
• According to Whorf these are not tenses because they reflect the epistemic validity of the statement rather than its duration or location in time
![Page 12: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Potawatomi inclusive and exclusive pronouns: we
(www.potawatomilang.org)
![Page 13: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hungarian object agreement
• The verb form signals the specificity of the object– Megevett egy almát.– Megette az almát.
![Page 14: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Hungarian locativesStatic Goal Source
Interior
(3D)
BAN BA BÓL
Exterior
(2D)
N RA RÓL
Approximate
(dimension neutral)
NÁL HOZ TÓL
![Page 15: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Examples
1. snow2. colours3. gender4. spatial language
![Page 16: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Snow
Eskimos have many different words for ‘snow’→ evidence that they see snow differently (urban legend!)
→ Boas, (1911): 4• aput („snow on the ground”)• gana („falling snow”)• piqsirpoq („drifting snow”)• qimuqsuq („a snowdrift”)
→ Sapir& Whorf, 1940: 7 → 1978: 50→ 1984 (New York Times): 100
![Page 17: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The truth about snow
• There are several Eskimo languages + Eskimo languages differ in the number of expressions they have for snow
• Definition of “word” is problematic – Inuit is a polysynthetic language: are words derived from the same stem
different or not?
• More importantly• Even if it was true that one language had more, is it evidence that
they see snow differently?painters: paintsornithologists: birds
![Page 18: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Colors
![Page 19: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Basic colour terms(Berlin & Kay, 1969)
• Properties– 1 morpheme– Not restricted to one class of items (e.g. blond)– Do not belong to the scope of another color terms (e.g. torqoise)– Frequently and generally used
• Basic color terms are chosen from 11 colors by all languges: black, white, red, yellow, green, blue, brown, pink, purple, orange, grey.
• languages differ in how many basic color terms they have (Hungarian for ‘pink’ rózsaszín is not a basic color term)
![Page 20: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
• 2 colour terms (mili-mola): Dani, New Guinea
• There seems to be a universal hierarchy of colour categorisation.
![Page 21: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
black white
red
green yellow
blue
brown
purple pink orange grey
![Page 22: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Do speakers of different languages see colors differently?
• Color categories are not arbitrary!• Same everywhere:
– light– Operation of the human eye
• 3 kinds of cones in color perception → these determine what we see
• Experiments (pl. Heider, 1972 – the dani): recalling and discrimination is good for colors—focal colors
![Page 23: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Experimental results(pl. Heider & Oliver, 1972; Rosch, 1978, Berlin & Kay 1969,
Kay & Kempton 1984)
• People speaking different languages choose the same shade as best exemplars of a category (focal colours)– The best exemplar of grue in grue languages is the same as the
best exemplar of green in green-blue languages
• Dani do as well as English speakers in non/verbal colour discrimination and memory tasks
• In a free categorization task, different speakers use different categories (those marked in their languages)
![Page 24: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Winawer et al 2007
• Russian speakers: faster RT if the two shades are from different linguistic colour categories
• English and Russian speakers– Russian: dark blue/light blue distinction
• A blue shade shown, then two blue shades• Task: which of the two is the same shade as the probe?
![Page 25: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Gilbert et al 2006
• If language affects perception, the effect should be stronger for the right visual field
• Task: Which side is the different shade on?
• Variables: – shade difference across or within
linguistic category (blue-green)– Target in left or right visual field
• Results: when different linguistic categories, faster response in RVF
![Page 26: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Korean locatives(Bowerman & Choi 1994, 2001)
![Page 27: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Korean locatives (Bowerman, 1996)• Korean (vs. English and Hungarian): no linguistic distinction, between
placing an object in a container or on a surface (in vs. on, -ban vs. -on)• Korean language distinguishes between tight fit (ring on a finger,
picture on the wall) and loose fit (fruit in a bowl, object leaning against a wall)– This distinction holds for both containment (in) and support (on)
• Experiments– English/Korean babies differentiate all potential spatial distinctions– As a results of acquiring a language certain spatial distinctions
(those strengthened by language) become salient in representation
![Page 28: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Navajo shape classifiers• Carroll and Casagrande: Navajo vs. English
– Navajo verbs change form according to the shape of the object it takes (shape classifiers)
• flexible vs. rigid; flat vs. round– give blue rope and yellow stick and ask which of the two a
blue stick can go with• Navajo choose shape: yellow stick
– English choose color: blue rope– conducted the test with upper class Bostonians
• responded like Navajo children– there is other kinds of determinism than just linguistic
determinism
![Page 29: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Grammatical gender and object perception
Experiment(Boroditsky & Schmidt, 2003)
– Spanish, German and English speakers (experiment language: English)
– Training: 24 pairs of object - name
– Test: object word shown, name has to be recalled
Results– For Spanish and German speakers, better recall performance for
pairs where the gender of the name corresponds to the gender of the object word
apple – Paul / Paulabench – Eric / Ericaclock – Karl / Karla
apple – ?bench – ?clock – ?
![Page 30: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Spatial reference (Brown 2001)
• Ego-centric (left, right, in front of me, behind me) – relative
• Intrinsic (left of the object, in front of the object, etc)• Geocentric (hill-wise, sea-wise, etc) – absolute
![Page 31: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Relative
frontback
left
right
![Page 32: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Intrinsic
leftright
front
back
![Page 33: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Absolute
North
West
South
East
![Page 34: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Tzeltal
• Left „xin” and right „wa’el”– Refer to body parts only
• Absolute reference system:– „alan”: downhill ~North– „ajk’ol”: uphill ~South– Indoors, outdoors
![Page 35: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Experiments
• Dutch + Tzeltal speakers (Bowerman, Levinson)
– Seated at talble in a room, shown a pattern– Turned 180 degrees, asked to reproduce pattern
![Page 36: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Chips task
![Page 37: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Chips task - results
![Page 38: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Maze task
![Page 39: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Maze - results
![Page 40: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Evidence for Relativity?
• Li & Gleitman (2002)– Response depends on environment: the availability of
reference points• Compare cities/varied landscape vs. open landscape
– In a darkened room (no visible reference points), English speakers also use the absolute reference frame
![Page 41: Language and thought. Relationship of cognition and language Categories of cognition are shaped by language –Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity Cognitive.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649d705503460f94a5220d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Reference frames and ecological conditions