Problem 9 Flashcards
What are the cross cultural differences on the relationship between talking and thinking ?
-
West: Speech + thought are thoroughly interrelated
* Analytic thinking, where each part can be described seperately + sequentially -
East: Speech + thought are independent from one another
* Holistic thinking, where one focuses on the whole
In comparison to western countries, eastern countries put less emphasis on speech.
But does speech necessarily mean less communication ?
No,
the closer the relationship, the more likely are people to rely on nonverbal communication
–> interdependence
Why is one better at recognizing objects or faces when one was not previously asked to describe it ?
Because, verbal descriptions will interfere with our ability to process the object as a whole
–> poorer recall
High context culture
Refer to cultures where people are deeply involved with each other + have shared info that guides their behavior
-
no need of explicit communication, more indirect speech
e. g.: Eastern cultures
Low context culture
Refers to a culture with little involvement among individuals
-
need for explicit communication to guide behavior, more direct speech
e. g.: Western cultures
There is a big difference in the explicitness of East asian languages, compared to European languages.
How is the key information of messages, when talking, conveyed ?
They are expressed nonverbally, whilst the content of the words are rather empty
- this is why easterners attend + focus more on the opponent conveying the message
e. g.: facial expressions, gestures, etc
Whorfian/linguistic relativity hypothesis
(Strong version)
Language determines how we think, we cannot think without language (available words)
–> universally rejected
Whorfian/linguistic relativity hypothesis
(Weak version)
Suggests that the language we speak affects how we think
–> e.g.: certain aspects of cognition like perception + memory
Categorical perception
Suggests that we tend to perceive stimuli as belonging to separate + discrete categories, even though the stimuli may gradually differ from each other along a continuum
ex.: difference between the phonemes “ba” vs “pa”, difference between colors green + blue
Much debate one the Whorfian hypothesis has focused on cross cultural differences in color perception, as different cultures classify colors in different ways.
Does the weaker version of the worfian hypothesis hold true here ?
Yes,
Ones perception of different colors is influenced by the color categories used in ones respective languages
–> as shown by categorical perception
Mathematics is a domain that is independent from culture, thus our ability to reason with numbers should reflect the experiences we had in our cultures.
Is this true and therefore evidence for the strong version of the Whorfian hypothesis ?
Yes,
Evidence showed that if linguistic terms for specific numbers were absent, people were not able to understand the associated numerical concept
–> e.g.: if there is no word for numbers higher than 2, one isn’t able to do maths correctly
Linguistic relativity can be considered in terms of peoples spatial descriptions.
How does this differ from culture to culture ?
West: Identify locations based on their position relative to the speaker
–> recent development
Australians: Identify locations based on the cardinal directions
Linguistic relativity
Refers to the ways in which speakers of any given language are influenced by the language they speak
Pragmatics
Refers to the study of the ways in which language is used + understood in the real world
–> relates to the intended meaning as opposed to the literal meaning
“meaning minus semantics”
Figurative language
Refers to language that is not intended to be taken literally
ex.: metaphors, irony etc
- requires more cognitive resources than literal language processing
- combining content with a relationship type
What are the 3 stages involved in processing a metaphorical or figurative statement ?
(Standard pragmatic model)
- Assessing the literal meaning
- Deciding whether the literal meaning makes sense in the current context
- If inadequate, searching for a suitable one
Standard pragmatic model
Predicts that figurative/metaphorical meanings should be accessed more slowly than literal ones
–> proved to be wrong, because this process is automatic
Predication model of metaphor understanding
(Kintsch)
Suggests that our understanding of metaphors depends on our ability to inhibit semantic properties of the predicate that are irrelevant to the argument (Non-reversability)
Consists of 2 components:
1. Latent semantic analysis component
- understanding the meanings of words based on their relations to other words
2. Construction-integration component
- using info from component 1 to construct interpretations of the statement
=> Metaphors involve a non-directional process that is preceded by a directional process
Directional process
Projecting info from the argument onto the predicate
ex.: sharks are aggressive, thus lawyers are aggressive
Non-directional process
Involves finding commonalities in meaning between the argument + predicate
ex.: sharks + lawyers
People with better … -Memory are better at inhibiting info that is irrelevant to the situation, thus are faster at understanding metaphors.
Working
Common ground
Refers to the shared knowledge + beliefs possessed by a speaker and listener
- the use of it facilitates communication
e. g.: Easterners have a greater common ground
