lesson 4: Culture and Cognition 2 Flashcards
Linguistic relativity hypothesis (Sapir- whorf Hypothesis), and its implications
- suggests language influences thinking
- People who speak different languages will differ in thinking processes and ways of interpreting the world (may perceive same events different ways)
examples of **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
- Eskimo languages- 300 words for types of snow (Increases sensitivity to types of snow)
- N.A. Hopi indians have no forms corresponding to english tenses and no words that conceptualize time as a dimension
Studies that support the **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
- Caroll & Casagrande
- Bloom
- Gordon
Neumonic: big castle of babbel , w lots of flowers blooming different languages, and a gorgon with snakes that speak different languages
Carroll & Casagrande (1985)
- Compared Navajo and english speaking children using an object classification task (shape, color, or function etc)
- Navajo language has “handling” verbs (eg to pick up, to drop) that require specific linguistic forms depending on the object handled (11 linguistic forms)
- navajo kids were more likely to categorize by shape
Neumonic: castle with a big handle that has Navajo shapes on it
Studies that support the **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
results of Carroll & Casagrande (1985)
- navajo kids were more likely to categorize by shape
- Suggested that linguistic features may influence cog processes
- Possible criticism: that the navajo kids weren’t familiar with the toys, could influence how they categorize them
- however Low income African American children not familiar with the blocks and foam-board toys, showed the same patterns as european americans
So it wasn’t the lack of familiarity
Studies that support the **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
Bloom (1981)
Reported that chinese speakers are less likely (than english) to give hypothetical interpretations to a hypothetical story
* In english, we use the subjunctive “If I WERE you” not “if I AM you”
* In chinese, there is no verbal subjunctive, (grammatical equivalent to “If I were you” is “be if I am you”)
Bloom interpreted the findings as evidence for language structure as a mediator of cog processes-
* Bc english and chinese differ in how they convey hypothetical meaning
Studies that support the **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
Gordon (2004)
- Studied the Piraha tribe of the Amazonia
- Their language has too few words for counting (No words >3)
- People in this tribe have difficulties with counting tasks
Studies that support the **Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis **
Challenges to the linguistic relativity hypothesis
- Berlin & Kay (1969)
- Rosch (1969)
- Pinker (1995)
Neumonic:
The Berlin Wall, covered in colored chips
Behind the wall, Dani with a red and blue rash, pink deaf person drawing out things
Berlin & Kay
- Studied the distribution of color terms in 20 languages
Asked international students in US to list “basic” color terms in their native language - Then asked them to identify the most typical/ best example of a basic color (using glass color chips)
- They found a limited number of basic color terms in any language
- Suggests that people in different cultures perceive colors in similar ways despite language differences
Neumonic: Berlin Wall made of color chips
Challenges to the linguistic relativity hypothesis
Rosch (1969)
compared english and Dani
“Dani” is spoken by a Stone Age tribe living in Indonesian New Guinea
Has 2 color terms:
* “Mili” : dark and cold colors (black, green, blue)
* “Mola”: light and warm colors (white, red, yellow)
Same methods as Berlin & Kay (color chips) to discriminate and remember colors
Despite the substantial language differences, Dani speakers performed very similarly to the English speaking participants (didn’t confuse color categories)
Neumonic: dani with a rash- half blue, half red
Challenges to the linguistic relativity hypothesis
Pinker (1995)
- Cited that deaf children lacking language, could still clearly think and reason
- Cited that isolated adults who grew up w/out language still could engage in abstract thinking
- Cited that babies, who have no language, can do simple arithmetic
- Conclude many of the earlier studies on linguistic relativity were flawed
We can think w/out words and language, suggesting that language doesn’t determine our thoughts
* Thought is also visual and nonverbal, not just language
Neumonic: pink deaf person drawing out ideas
Challenges to the linguistic relativity hypothesis
Conclusion on Linguisitic relativity
- Still being debated by many linguistic and cog psychologists
- Most recent studies have revisited it and provided new evidence supporting the hypothesis
Cognitive processes that are similar accross cultures
1) perception of facial expressions
2) shape categorization
Neumonic: different people with different facial expressions and shapes painted on their faces
perception of facial expressions across cultures
Perception of basic emotions through facial expressions has been found to be equivalent across cultures (happiness, anger, fear etc)
Shape categorization accross cultures
- Regardless of culture, we tend to decide whether something belongs to a certain group by comparing it to the most common or representative member of the category
Ex: different chairs have different shapes, but we recognize them as belonging to the basic category of chair
