EXAM 3: Linguistic Relativity Flashcards
Linguistic Relativity/ Sapir-whorf hypothesis
Grammatical system of language we speak influences our world view/cognition
Speakers of different languages conceptualize the world in different ways
As child learns language, they are subtly influenced by grammar to think about the world
How to test Linguistic relativity
Usually by nonlinguistic tasks
Either:
1. Compares language concepts in 1 language
2. Compares both languages from 3 natives (cross-linguistic)
3. Bilinguals
Ramscar (2003)
Background:
Eng: marks verbs with tense by changing pronunciation
Ind: Doesn’t change verbs to mark tense
Study:
Compared similarity perception of 2 pairs:
A: Different tense, same actor
B: Same tense, different actor
Asked to rate the pair that was most similar
Results:
Eng: B more similar
Perceives actions in same tense as more similar than different tense, devotes more attention to verb timing than actor
Ind: A more similar
Perceives actors same as more similar
Did not devote much attention to verb timing and more attention to actor
Language affects similarity judgments and affects where we devote our attention
Ramscar (2003) Variations
Used ind-eng bilinguals tested in English instructions or Indonesian instructions and asked to rate similarity
When tested in English, showed pattern of english monolinguals and when tested in Ind, showed pattern of ind monolinguals
In between/ Cross category
Any 2 stimuli from different categories
Within category
Any 2 stimuli in same category
Winawer (2007)
Background:
Eng: no obligatory distinguishing of light/dark blue
Russ: obligatory distinguishing of light/dark blue
Study:
Tested each in speeded color discrimination task for blue stimuli
Results:
Russ: faster discrim of 2 colors when in between/cross category than within
Cross-category advantage: advantage in distinguishing colors from different (in between) categories
Eng: no cross category advantage in any condition
Gilbert (2006)
Question:
If language affects perception, it must affect it more in the right visual field (RVF) since it is left hemisphere contralateral and language is left hemisphere dominant
Study:
Visual search task
A wheel with same color and 1 different color
The 1 different color is either from within or cross category
Results:
People identified the 1 different color faster if it was from cross category rather than within (Cross category advantage)
Cross category advantage only showed up when targets were displayed in RVF
Suggests that people view their RVF through the lens of native language
Shows evidence of left hemisphere language dominance and contralateral associations
Fausey and Boroditsky (2010)
Background:
Transitive agentive description: Timberlake ripped the costume; has an agent and a transitive verb
Intransitive nonagentive description: The costume ripped; has no agent
Study:
236 Stanford students read report A and B of a restaurant fire
Report A: Transitive and agentive
Report B: Intransitive and nonagentive
then answered questions and made judgments
Results:
People who read agentive Report A blamed Ms. Smith more
Big difference in financial liability
agentive was found more guilty than nonagentive
Showed how subtle linguistic framing can influence shift of blame/guilt
Fausey and Boroditsky (2011)
Question:
Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory
Background:
Eng: uses agentive description for both intentional and accidental events
Span: Uses agentive for intentional but nonagentive for accidental
Study:
1st: All participants watched videos of intentional and accidental events and asked to provide linguistic description
2nd: Nonlinguistic memory task, people watched videos silently and asked their witness memory
Results:
Description:
Eng and Span used agentive for intentional
Eng used agentive for accidents
Span used nonagentive for accidents
Witness memory:
Eng and Span remembered the agent of intentional events
Eng remembered agents of accidental events better than Spanish speakers
