Probleem 1 - Language and thought Flashcards
Whorf hypothesis
Language shapes thought patterns. Consists of two parts:
- Linguistic determinism: Language determines certain nonlinguistic cognitive processes. Learning a language changes thinking.
- Linguistic relativity: Speakers of different languages think different.
We are unconscious of the way in which we classify objects.
Differentiation - Lexical example of the Whorf hypothesis.
Number of words in a given domain. All languages show high degrees of differentiation in some domains and low degrees in others (ex. snow).
A more highly differentiated domain has more words/finer distinctions.
If we encounter a word on a regular basis, it may influence our habitual thought patterns.
Criticism: The number of words in a language varies. If we inly count root words, we will get a lower number than if include the suffixed versions as well.
Grammatical examples of the Whorf hypothesis
In English we make differences between nouns and verbs. Whorf suggested that English speakers think of objects as consisting of form and substance because of their grammatical distinction (bodies of water/waters).
Criticism Whorf hypothesis
- Does not square with behaviorism
- Does not match universal universals.
- Methodological: We need to asses language and cognitive processes independently»_space; does not look at consequences.
Lexical influences on cognition
Any study that attempts to test the Whorf hypothesis must define the three key terms:
- Defying differences in language:
- Compare a language that linguistically marks conceptual distinction with one that does not. (= most common)
- Compare two languages with same distinction in different way. - Defying differences in thought:
- Aspects of thinking that indicated a habitual mode of thought. Habitual mode of thought is routine ways of attending to objects and events, categorizing them, remembering them and perhaps even reflect upon them. - Clarify what is meant by saying that languages determine thought:
- The linguistic determinism hypothesis can be interpreted in at least two different ways. The strong version states that language determines cognition; the presence of linguistic categories creates cognitive categories.»_space; No evidence!
- A weak version of the hypothesis states that the presence of linguistic categories influences the ease with which various cognitive operations are performed; Certain thought processes may be more easily performed by language a speakers than language b speakers.»_space; Most used!
Codability
The length of a verbal expression. Some languages have one word for an event, some languages need more.
Color terms
Number of colors deviates per language. Every language has a small number of basic color terms. There is a hierarchy in this depending on how many terms a language has:
Black/white»_space; Red»_space; Yellow/Green»_space; Blue»_space; Brown»_space; Purple/pink/orange/grey
Thus, the perception of colors appears to be dependent on terms we use to refer to them.
= Support for weak version of the Whorf hypothesis.
Zipf’s law
The length of a word is negatively correlated with its frequency of use. (= relationship between code ability and frequency of use_
Focal colors
The most representative example of basic colors. Focal colors are more perceptually salient than non-focal colors. This salience influences the code ability and memorability of a color. Memory for focal colors is beteer than for non-focal colors.
Support for weak version of Whorf hypothesis.
Number terms
Morphological differences in number names (eighteen vs ten-eight).
- Asian languages have greater regularity»_space; suggests easier to learn.
Object terms
The prevalence of nouns and verbs in speech may influence the timing of certain cognitive abilities (children).
Spatial terms
Languages differ in the spatial frames of reference. These frames of reference influence performance on non-linguistic spatial tasks.
- Absolute terms; refer to the location of an object irrespective of the location of a person (north/south).
- Relative terms; indicate the relationship between an object in space and a person (in front of me).
- Intrinsic terms refer to objects in relation to various object coordinates (behind the house).
Not all languages use all three frames.
Counterfactual reasoning
The ability to reason about an event that is contrary to fact.
Example:
If John han come earlier, they would have arrived at the movies on time.
No clear conclusion on counterfactual reasoning; some variables and their influence have been uncovered»_space; it is difficult to interpret results.
If it exists it is specialized and not habitual.
Russian blues reveals the effects of language on colour discrimination
Goal
In Russian there is a deviation between light-blue and dark-blue. This article investigated whether linguistic difference leads to differences in color discrimination.
Method
English and Russian speakers were tested in a speeded color discrimination task using blue stimuli that spanned the blue border. Some trials were within-category trials and some we cross-category trials.
Hypotheses
- Russian speakers should make faster cross-category discriminations than within-category discriminations.
Results
- Russian speakers were faster to discriminate two colors when they fell into different linguistic categories than when they were from the same category.
- This advantage was eliminated by a verbal, but not by a spatial, dual task.
- English speakers did not show a category advantage in any of the conditions.
Conclusion
- Categories in language influence presentation on a simpel color discrimination task.
- The effect can be interrupted by a verbal interference.
Color naming across language reflects color use
Goal Investigate how different languages categorise colors and their universality. They compared three languages: - English - Bolivian-Spanish - Tsimane
Results
In terms of color-naming, at the population level, all three languages have a comparable representation of color space. However compared with Bolivian-Spanish and English speakers, the Tsimane’ speakers showed a much greater variability in what color terms were used for all chromatic chips except red.
Results showed relatively low surprisal (number of yes/no questions needed to identify color) for warm colors (red and yellow), compared with lower surprisal for cool colors (green and blue).
Reason: Objects defined by human observers tend to be warm colored while background tend to be cool colored.
Figure 1: Matching color name
- Two conditions; free choice and multiple choice.
- Tsimane»_space; less deviation within one color.
- Basic colors are found in all languages.
- Chips are categorized in the same way in all three languages»_space; color deviation is the same.
- Spanish is more detailed than Tsimane.
- The larger the chip, the greater the agreement in color.
Figure 3: Surprisal rate per language for the chips
- Surprisal = how many questions are needed to indentify color.
- Tsimane is less efficient than Spanish»_space; needed more questions to identify color.
- Low surprisal = warm colors
- High surprisal = cool colors
- Spanish/English are better in identifying colors»_space; have more words, so they can differentiate better.
Conclusion
- The higher the surprisal, the lower the communicative efficiency.
- The more color words, the lower the surprisal.