10>language & cognition Flashcards
Language & cognition is about…>
how language acquisition shapes & affects general cognition
How does langugae acquisition shape & affect general cognition> 2 main parts>
- linguistic relativity (how a specific lang affects)
- bilingualism (how multiple langs affects)
what are the ‘general cognition’ areas that linguistic relativity (specific lang) affects>
- colour perception
- spatial perception
- theory of mind
what are the ‘general cognition’ areas that bilingualism (multiple langs) affects>
- word learning
- cognitive control (switching & inhibition)
- Theory of mind
How does linguistic relativity affect colour perception?>
the ‘terminology’ of specific langs can affect our perception of colour
ways of testing colour perception>
- colour perception tests:
- shown a colour chip
- removed colour chip
- asked to find colour just seen out of selection
Linguistic relativity & colour perception> study> (eng and himba)> 1st test
- colour chip test on 3;0 & 4;0 year olds learning english & himba
- first looked at children who have not acquired colour terminology yet
- asked to find colour & assessed on knowledge of lang terminology
Linguistic relativity & colour perception> study> (eng and himba)> 1st test> results>
- task performance as the SAME
- havent yet acquired colour terminology
- any errors would be based on perceptual distance (<perceptually similar colours)
Linguistic relativity & colour perception> study> (eng and himba)> 2nd test>
- colour chip test on 3;0 & 4;0 year olds learning eng & himba who HAVE acquired colour terminology
- asked to find colour & assessed on knowledge of lang terminology
Linguistic relativity & colour perception> study> (eng and himba)> 2nd test> results>
- english speaking kids who have learnt blue and green made less errors than Himba kids
- for himba speaking kids (where blue & green are same) they made errors between the colours
3 ways of talking about spatial relation: (frames of reference)
- relative
- intrinsic
- absolute
relative spatial perception=
egocentric perspective
- use terminology like ‘right’ & ‘left’ (from self)
(e.g. “the pig is to the right of the cow”)
intrinsic spatial perception=
describing from perspective of one of the objects
(e.g. “the pig is in front of the cow”)
absolute spatial perception=
use of east/west/north/south (or towards the mountains; towards where the sun comes up)
(e.g. “the pig is east of the cow”)
spatial terms & cognition> study on pigs/cows/sheep
- had an array with cow, sheep and pig
- had a school in between
- showed array to kids
- moved kids to other side of school
- asked children to rearrange the animals in the same array
spatial terms & cognition> study on pigs/cows/sheep> results>
- in egocentric kids–>array of animal from L>R & cow towards L & at back with sheep at R
- in object centrered–>array with sheep at front facing them, pig in middle & cow at back (getting further away/forward)
- in geocentric–>array with back of cow infront of them, then back of pig, then back of sheep (getting further away/forward)
spatial terms & cognition> study on pigs/cows/sheep> (repeated age 8)
> 2 conditions
- free choice (rearrange in same order)
- or instructed them to use non-preferred response option
spatial terms & cognition> study on pigs/cows/sheep> (repeated age 8)> results>
- didnt matter which condition
- dutch kids preferred egocentric way of arranging
- haillom kids preferred geocentric way of arranging
false-belief=
own or other’s belief or representation about the world that contrasts with reality (understanding others have beliefs & that these can be false)
knowledge required to pass ‘false-belief task’>
- people’s beliefs are based on what THEY know
- mental states can differ from reality
- people’s behaviour can be predicted by their mental states (e.g. false beliefs)
TOM: false belief task> sally anne>
- 2 characters ‘sally’ & ‘anne’
- sally has a basket & anne has a box
- sally puts red ball in her basket
- sally leaves room
- when sally isnt in room, anne takes ball out of basket & puts into box
-sally comes back & wants to play with the ball - asked kids where sally would look for the ball (if have TOM, then would ans ‘basket’)
TOM: false belief task> sally anne> results>
- monolingual children start giving right answer around age 4;0 (basket)
TOM: false belief task> sally anne> cross ling look (turkish vs eng)>results>
- Turkish speaking children perform better on false belief tasks than eng-speaking children
- due to ‘evidential markers’ existing obligatorily in past tense of turkish but not at all in eng
(with these requiring speakers to indicate if they have witnessed something directly or whether somebody has TOLD them something)
source monitoring=
the ability to track one’s source of info (remembering where, when, how and from whom the info was gathered)
evidential markers=
require speakers to indicate if they have witnessed something DIRECTLY or whether somebody has TOLD them about an event
source monitoring study> (colour bags)
- different colour bags presented to children
- there were 3 ways for kids to find out what was in the bags: seeing/ hearing/ understanding from a clue
- & after were asked what they remember & HOW they knew the contents of the bag
source monitoring study> (colour bags)> results>
- kids who were good at producing evidential markers (turkish kids) were also good at source monitoring
overall: false belief in turkish vs eng>
- turkish learning kids performed better at false belief tasks
- learning a lang with obligatory evidentiality leads to better performance in source monitoring, which in turn leads to better false belief performance
How Bilingualism affects word learning>
- bilingual children tend to have a smaller vocabulary in each lang than monolingual peers
- when counting up words in both langs, bilingual & monolingual children have similar vocabulary sizes
evidence for bilingual children having smaller vocabulary in each lang than monolingual peers>
- significantly lower scores on ‘peabody picture vocabulary test’
- in test given 4 pictures & given a word & have to point at picture
how does bilingualism affect mutual exclusivity>
- bilinguals make less use of ‘mutual exclusivity’ (assuming objects have only 1 label)
- suggested to be due to constant learning of 2 names for one thing due to their bilingualism
-having to accept 2 labels for one obj could lead to small delays in learning words
bilingualism & mutual exclusivity study (shoe)>
-1;5-1;6 years
- show & novel obj presented
- said “look at the teebu”
- eye gaze data were collected
bilingualism & mutual exclusivity study (shoe)> results>
-monolinguals looked at novel obj
- bilinguals were more torn as to which to look at
- thus bilinguals used mutual exclusivity to a lesser extent than monolinguals
how does bilingualism affect lexical retrieval ?
- slower picture naming
- more tip-of-tongue phenomena
- more interference in lexical decision (is word or not?)
possible explanations for bilingual’s worse performance on lexical retrieval than monolinguals>
-weaker links between concepts & words (in each lang> as shared between 2)
- competition from the corresponding item in the non-target language (<need to inhibit & flexibly switch between langs)
how to test inhibition>
- bear-dragon task
- day & night task
study on inhibition> ‘bear-dragon task & day & night taks>
-whatever bear says do
-whatever dragon says DONT do it
^ have to inhibt auditory info
- whenever see sun say night
- whenever seen moon say day
^have to inhibt visual info
study on inhibition> ‘bear-dragon/ ‘day & night’ task> results>
billinguals perform better in these tasks than monolinguals
study on switching> ‘dimensional change card sort test’>
-pre-switch= condition to sort objs by colour
- post-switch= condition to sort objs by shape
study on switching> ‘dimensional change card sort test’> results>
- all children aged 5;5 years succeeded in sorting correctly
- for children aged 4;2 only the bilinguals succeeded (due to them being able to switch between langs everyday)
Bilingualism & TOM study> (chinese & eng)
- 3& 4 year old cchinese & eng monolinguals & chinese-eng bilinguals studied according to false belief task (sally anne)
- each group was tested twice (due to needing to test bilinguals in both langs & even field in other groups)
Bilingualism & TOM study> (chinese & eng)> results>
- bilinguals performed better on false belief tasks in the first session than monolinguals
possible explanations for bilingual advantage to TOM false belief task>
- bilinguals are used to having 2 different representations for the same thing (metaling explanation)
- bilinguals from around 2 are aware that people do not always share languages (sociolinguistic explantion
- bilinguals have a higher level of inhibition & switching (cognitive explanation)
