Lec 26: Language 3 Flashcards
Whorfian hypothesis
1920s; categories and distinctions of language influences how we think; language determines thought; speakers of different languages differ in how they perceive and act in objectively similar situations; evaluation: can’t be true - animals and preverbal infants have thoughts too
Nicaraguan sign language
evidence that language communicates thought; no formal education –> developed “home” signs; early signs are relatively iconic; lack words for certain abstract concepts: early cohort has no words for “left” and “right”; cannot appropriately communicate about left/right relations –> when asked to identify which picture they saw (fencer on right or left; direction of sword) they couldn’t; don’t have words for left and right, can’t think about left and right –> WRONG
lack of language impedes communication
non-controversial claim
evidence that language influences thought
label influences memory, imagery, and blames
curtains/diamond (Reisberg) –> the verbal label of a stimulus influences how someone draws the stimulus from memory –> verbal label influences aspect of stimulus people pay attention to
car accident - retrospective bias (Loftus) –> different verbs influence thoughts about situation
agentive vs. nonagentive description of events (Fausey & Boroditsky) –> “wardrobe malfunction of Timberlake/Jackson, two types of descriptions: agentive report = JT unfastened snap and tore apart JJ bodice slid cover off chest OR nonagentive report = snap unfastened, bodice tore cover slid off –> when heard agentive report, blame JT more, fine extra $30.829 (53%) more
non-controversial claim
linguistic relativity
controversial claim; speakers of different languages will think [i.e., perceive and represent the world] differently, depending on what aspects of the world are enshrined by their language
intuition; experimental evidence = space, time, objects
language shapes thought
linguistic determinism: spatial reorientation
- hiding event: experimenter hides sticker as child/monkey watches
- disorientation: child/monkey puts on blindfold and spinds around
- search: child/monkey searches for sticker w/o blindfold
–> use geometric info from the rectangular room, go to two locations with = probability (where the sticker was hidden and the diagonal) because both are geometrically similar
add a red wall: when adults tested, they go to the correct place 100% of the time –> they combine nongeometirc (color of wall) info and geometric info; kids and monkey still look in correct and diagonal corner -> don’t use nongeometric info because they don’t have the language for nongeometric
*in adults if verbal system is tied up, adults also make same mistake as children and monkey
evidence for language creating thought unclear
linguistic determinism: number
language independent: small exact, large approximate
language dependent: large exact
Piraha tribe has words for one, two, and many; people there can represent large approximate number but not large exact number
matching task: lay batteries out in opposite dimensions –> not counting, prop. correct declines with increasing number
nuts-in-can task: drop same number of nuts in can –> not counting, prop. correct declines with increasing number
if you don’t have words, task is difficult
evidence that language creates thought: maybe
linguistic relativity: objects
grammatical gender: mark objects as gendered objects (in some languages; feminine or masculine)
memory task: picture-name pairs
- apple + Patrick
- violin + Patricia
German or Spanish speakers: better memory when grammatical gender of object matched gender of name in their native language –> Spanish better with apple + Patricia, German better with apple + Patrick
24 object names - opposite grammatical genders in Spanish and German; native Spanish and native German speakers write down (in English) the 1st 3 adjectives that came to mind to describe each object –> subjects generated adjectives consistent with the word’s grammatical gender in their native language
unclear evidence for linguistic relativity
Linguistic determinism
controversial claim; language determines the thought one can have; one cannot think what one cannot say; “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world”
specific domains: spatial reorientation, number
language creates thought
linguistic relativity: space
Korean and English speaking adults were shown scenes involving tight fit [or all scenes involving loose fit]; then they saw two examples: one tight fit and one loose fit; Korean adults: look longer at the familiarized relations (e.g., tight fit); English adults: no difference in looking time; also: when shown several examples of tight + 1 loose (or vice versa), Korean adults can pick out the odd picture but English speakers cannot –> Korean has word, English not
Magnet on refrigerator door, cylinder on the table; cylinder in the bowl, key in the lock –> English distinguishes in and on
cylinder loose able, cylinder loose bowl; magnet tight refrigerator door, key tight lock; Korean distinguishes tight and loose
suggestive but not definitive of linguistic relativity
linguistic relativity: time
Mandarin speakers tend to think about time vertically, English speakers horizontally
horizontal priming: the white worm is ahead of –> the white worm; December comes later than March: TRUE
vertical priming: the white ball floats ^ below the black ball, the black ball ^ floats above the white ball; August comes earlier than October: TRUE
Mandarin speakers: faster at confirming time if just saw a vertical array of objects than a horizontal array, English the reverse is true
no evidence for linguistic relativity
