Problem 9 - language etc Flashcards
deontological prescriptions
-forbid certain behavior regardless of consequences
utilitarian prescriptions
-brining greatest food for greatest number of people
pragmatics - key word
- concerned with practical language use and comprehension
- related to intended rather than literal meaning
- taking account of current social context (tone, environment)
- meaning minus semantic
figurative language
-forms of language not intended to be taken literally
standard pragmatic model
3 stages
1) literal meaning is accessed
2) deciding weather literal meaning makes sense in context
3) if it seems inadequate -> search for non literal meaning
- > literal meaning should be accessed faster and automatically
- > non literal meanings are optional
graded salience hypothesis
- initial processing is determined by salience or prominence rather than by type of meaning (literal vs non literal)
- novel metaphors are less salient and familiar -> require additional processing
- salience is determined by frequency and familiarity
- less-salient meanings require extra inferential processes -> strong contextual support
predication model of metaphor understanding
- two components
1) latent semantic analysis component
2) construction integration component
1) latent semantic analysis component
- this represents the meanings of words based on their relations with other words in a 300-dimension space
- non directional process of finding commonalities between words
2) construction integration component
- uses info from first component to construct interpretations of statements
- argument is a predicate structure (eigenschaft)
- this component selects features of predicate that are relevant to the argument
- inhibits irrelevant predicate features
example: ‘Lawyers are sharks’
- > features such as vicious and aggressive are relevant
- > having fins and swimming are not
Evidence for the predication model of metaphor understanding
- Non-reversibility of metaphors
- Lawyers are sharks # Sharks are Lawyers
-> only those features of the predicate relevant to the argument are selected
- > changing the argument changes the features selected
- ‘my lawyer is a shark’ was harder too understand when preceded by a contextual sentence emphasizing the literal meaning of ‘shark’ (e.g. sharks can swim)
common ground
- the mutual knowledge and beliefs shared by a speaker and listener
- listener expect that speakers will mostly refer to info that is in the common ground
speakers have 2 methods to deal with common ground
1) shared responsibility = speaker asks listener to give him info in the case there is a problem with the common ground
2) cognitive overload = the speaker tries to keep track of his and the listeners’ knowledge, but that often requires excessive cognitive processing
Perspective adjustment model - Keysar
-can be very effortful for listener to keep working out the common ground existing between them and the speaker
-instead: listeners use a rapid and non-effortful egocentric heuristic:
=> a strategy in which listeners interpret what they hear based on their own knowledge rather than on knowledge shared with speaker
talking and thinking - western cultures
- gift of language is one of the highest valued
- language and thought are seen as related
- western people reveal who they are with what they say
talking and thinking - eastern cultures
- they do not see language and thought as related
- do not think that what one says is who one is
what if there are really differences in east and west between the relation of talking and thinking?
- we should be able to observe variation in performance on cognitive tasks, between cultures that speak more and those that speak less
- speaking should interfere with thinking on eastern cultures
solving Raven’s matrices
- study
- methods
- participants solve Raven’s matrices
- once in silence
- once with a vocal task (either say what they thought during the problem solving or repeat the alphabet)
Study: Raven’s matrices
-findings
Westeners:
- talking and thinking = same
- when talking expresses thinking -> no negative impact on performance
- when talking interferes with thinking (articulatory suppression) -> big impairment
Easteners:
- when talking expresses thinking -> impaired
- when talking interferes with thinking -> not really impaired
explanation for Raven’s matrices findings
- due to different types of thinking used in each culture
- analytic in west: focus in one part that can easily be expressed in words
- holistic in east: difficult to express thoughts in words -> multiple relations can’t be described at once
pen study
- first conduction: write down which pen one chooses
- second condition: say loud which pen they choose
- westerns: felt worse when the pen was taken away when they verbally chose a favorite pen
- > greater commitment to the pen
-asians: evaluation of situation is independent from expression (writing/talking)
Explicit VS implicit communication in high context cultures
- east
- people can be less explicit since much is already understood by implicit cues ( how something is said is more important than what is said)
-they can ‘read the air’
Explicit vs implicit communication in low context cultures
- west
- less shared information (rules) to guide behavior
- must communicate more explicitly to fill in gaps that could lead to misunderstandings
Sapir-Whorf
Whorfian/linguistic relativity hypothesis
- hypothesis: language determines how we think -> strong version, has universally been rejected
- language influences how we think but much thought occurs outside of language
- > weaker version, universally accepted
- > supported by Einstein
- language obliges people to think about certain ideas (die Brücke = female, unlike english)
Linguistic relativity and color perception
- proven that cultures that split up the color spectrum differently ( in different words) perceive them different as well
- > categorize them differently
- article: russian blues
Linguistic relativity and odor perception
- in english, there aren’t many words to describe odors
- > english-speakers are not as good in recognizing different smells
linguistic relativity and perceptions of agency (Handlung)
- in english, a sentence that is said in an agentive way ‘blames someone’ (i broke the vase)
- when it is said in a non-agentive way , this is not the case ( the vase broke itself)
- in english -> agentive ways are common -> makes more accurate to determine did something
- spanish speaking people use the non-agency style more often
linguistic relativity and spatial perception
-english describes positions of object as relative to position of speaker (left, right)
- other cultures use general descriptions (east of object, west)
- > perceive direction of world in terms of cardinal directions and not relative to their body’s position
numerical cognition
-this aspects support the strong, and usually rejected version of the Whorfian hypothesis
- variation between cultures when it comes to numerical understanding
- depends on counting system
- cultures with poor number system also have poor competence with mathematics
-> the absence of linguistic terms for specific numbers restricts the ability to understand numerical concepts
=> thinking depends on language
compound Bilingualism
- person learns two languages in the same context where they are used concurrently
- fused presentation of the languages in the brain
coordinate bilinguals
-person learns the languages in separate environments
-words of the two languages are kept separate with each word having its own specific meaning
-
functional neuroplasticity
-the study of how experience modifies brain structures and brain function
Bilinguals are better at…
- symbol manipulation and reorganization
- metalinguistic awareness = solving linguistic problems based on understanding such concepts as the difference between form and meaning
- executive control
Monolinguals are better at..
- verbal skills
- large vocabulary
- picture-naming tasks
- semantic fluency= comprehending and producing words
language processing in bilinguals
- joint activation of languages
- > fluent bilinguals show some measure of activation of both languages and some interaction between them at all times
- even in contexts that are entirely driven by only one of the languages
- joint activation creates attention problem
- need to select correct language from competing options
- > ordinary linguistic processing more effortful for bilinguals
inhibitory control model
-?
bilingual interactive model
?
Bilingualism and dementia
- lifelong bilingualism protects against age-related cognitive decline
- may even postpone the onset of symptoms
cognitive reserve
-idea that engagement in stimulating physical or mental activity can act to maintain cognitive functioning in healthy aging and postpone the onset of symptoms in those suffering form dementia
Conclusion: bilinguals better at…
-inhibiton
-selection
-switching
-sustained attention
-working memory
-representation and retrieval
=> mental flexibility
linguistic determinism
- language determines thought
- problematic behavioral measures
linguistic relativism
- language-thought interaction
- no neurophysiological evidence
individual differences - working memory capacity
- individuals high in WM capacity perform better on comprehension tasks than those low in WM capacity
- greater attentional control
- less mind wondering
- better at discriminating what more important
Discourse Processing - key word
- discourse = connected text or speech generally at least several sentences long (=story)
- > we draw inferences most of the time when reading or listening to someone
discourse processing - 3 types of inferences
1) logical inferences
- > inferences depending solely on the meaning of words
2) bridging/backward inferences -> inferences that are drawn to increase the coherence between the current and preceding parts of a text (anaphor resolution, causal inferences)
3) elaborative/forward inferences
- >inferences that add details to a text that is being read by making use of our general knowledge
-> readers generally draw logical and bridging inferences because they are essential for understanding
anaphor resolution
-working out the referent of a pronoun or noun by relating it to some previously mentioned noun or noun phrase
two ideas about inferences (2)
1) constructionist approach
- > we have a bunch of unrelated ideas while we read
2) minimalist hypothesis
- > we make inferences after reading
constructionist approach
- on the mark when the reader is attempting to comprehend the text for enjoyment or mastery at a more leisurely pace
- bransford
- mental models of situation and events referred to in the text
minimalist approach
- probably correct when the reader is very quickly reading the text, when the text lacks global coherence, and when the reader has very little background knowledge
- goal oriented inferences, nur das nötigste
discourse comprehension
- schema theory
- Bartlett theory
- construction integration model
limitations predicate model
-only for A is B metaphor
egocentric heuristic
-tendency to consider referent objects that are not in the common ground
-everyone sticks to their own common ground
-
-misunderstandings happen a lot
egocentric heuristic, evidence, evaluation, limitation
…
working memory - theories, hypothesis
1) high wm -> good focus, reduced mind wandering in conservation -> better comprehension
2) form effective situation models when reading
3) better at discriminating at relevant and irrelevant info
- > but IQ and vocabulary are important as well
schema theory
- bartlett
- top down
3 types of errors that can occur when using schemas for/while recalling
-rationalization:
make recall more rational, fit with own cultural expectations
-levelling:
omitting (löschen) unfamiliar details
-sharpening:
selecting certain details for embellishment (Verzierung)
construction- integration model
-Knitsch
- sentences -> erstellt proposition representing its meaning
- spreading activation process -> selects propostions -> put into 3 categories
- > surface representation
- > propositional representation (meaning)
- > situation representation ( mental model representing situation and events)
-> assumes bottom up
findings and limitations - construction integration model
- > top down processing should be included
- emotions are not included
event index model
-wer wie wo was warum
…….
-5 dimensions
event segmentation
- 1 dimension
- > if one thing changes, completely new picture is formed
west
- greek background , debating etc
- believe and thought related
- analytic focus on one thing -> easy to express
east
- holistic thinking
- > cant be expressed in words easily
