Unformatted text preview:

1Psych 56L/ Ling 51:Acquisition of LanguageLecture 14Language & Cognition(The Whirlwind Tour)AnnouncementsIf you haven’t turned in homework 2, you can still do sofor late credit. This is highly encouraged becausezeroes are bad.Review questions available for language and cognition(though we will probably finish up this topic onMonday)Homework 3 officially assigned; due Monday 12/1/08Reminder: No class 11/26/08We do “hear” language sounds differently depending on whatlanguage we speak. But when we fail to hear a contrast that aspeaker of another language does hear, it isn’t because ourphysical ability to register the sound has disappeared. It’sbecause we have learned that that type of contrast is not ameaningful contrast for our language.Our mental representations of the sounds of words are anabstraction of the physical signal. (ex: Dental d and retroflex Dsound the same to English speakers, but sound different toHindi speakers.)We hear language “through a lens”A Recap from Sound PerceptionSapir Whorf HypothesisThe structure of one’s language influences the manner in whichone perceives and understands the world. Therefore, speakersof different languages will perceive the world differently.“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow therange of thought? In the end, we shall make thought crimeliterally impossible, because there will be no words in which toexpress it…” - George Orwell, 19842Degrees of WhorfianismLinguistic Determinism (strong Whorfianism) = Languagedetermines our perception of the worldLinguistic Relativism (weak Whorfianism) = Language biasesour perception of the worldSound perception supports linguistic relativism since there isevidence that the changes imposed by language are notpermanent or insurmountable. (Adults can learn to hear non-native sound contrasts.)Different Whorfian QuestionsLanguage as a Category Maker: Does the language we acquireinfluence where we make our category distinctions?Language as a Lens: Do grammatical characteristics of alanguage shape speakers’ perceptions of the world?Language as a Toolkit: Does language augment our capacity forreasoning and representation?Language as Category Maker(1) Sound inventory of a language and perception ofspeech sounds in native & foreign languages(2) Color terms and color perceptionContrastive soundcategories formedbased on data inlanguageThe Physical Stimulus for Colorhue “wavelength”Oscillation frequency oflight radiation3brightnesssaturationintensitypurity2 Other Dimensions of ColorAmplitude oflight radiationIntensity of dominantwavelength, relative toentire light signalRange of Color: Maunsell color chipshuebrightnessHow English speakers tend to divide these upHow do other languages divide the colors?Debi RobersonU. of Essex, UKJules DavidoffU. of London, UKBerinmo tribeNew Guinea4EnglishBerinmo(Davidoff 2001)EnglishBerinmo(Davidoff 2001)Language Influencing Perception in Color?Berinmo divides the color space differently than English.Do Berinmo speakers perceive color differently?If categorical effects are restricted to linguistic boundaries, the 2populations should show markedly different responses acrossthe 2 category boundaries (green-blue and nol-wor)If categorical effects are determined by the universal properties ofthe visual system, then both populations should show the sameresponse patterns.EnglishBerinmo(Davidoff 2001)Within categoryWithin categoryAcross categoryAcross category5Test using Maunsell color chips from these rangesCategorical Perception ResultsEnglish speakers showed significantly superior recognition fortargets from across-category pairs than for those from within-category pairs for the green-blue boundary, but not for the nol-wor boundary. Berinmo speakers had the opposite pattern.Implication: Categorical perception for color, so linguisticrelativity in the domain of color, too.But maybe this is a result of people naming the colors in orderto make their decision. So the effect of language is not onperception of color but on strategy for encoding color.Eliminating the Verbal Encoding of Color(Roberson & Davidoff 2000)Subjects were shown a color and then asked to read colorwords (verbal interference) or look at a multicolored dotpattern (visual interference)Subjects then shown 2 color chips - the original color andone that was 1 or 2 color chips away - and asked whichwas the original colorWithin category identificationAcross category identificationVerbal interferenceonly affects across-category identification.This suggests thatsubjects are usinglanguage to help themmake decisions aboutcolors that fall intodifferent linguisticcategories.Eliminating the Verbal Encoding of Color(Roberson & Davidoff 2000)6Categorical Color Perception?Conclusion: While language does have an effect on theway humans interact with color, it does not seem toalter their base-level perception of the physicalstimulus.Definitely not the strong version of linguistic relativism -but some support for language as category-maker at aconscious level for color.Language as a Lens: possible evidenceSpatial Frames of ReferenceMotion Events (manner encoded in verb or PP)Language for Spatial Location RelationshipsSpatial Frames of ReferenceLanguages vary in which aspects of spatial location must beobligatorily encodedEx: English vs. Korean/JapaneseSpatial Frames of ReferenceLanguages vary in which aspects of spatial location must beobligatorily encodedEx: English vs. Korean/JapaneseMunnich, Landau & Dosher (2001): Does the difference inobligatory encoding of ‘contact’ in spatial prepositions in Englishvs. Korean/Japanese influence nonlinguistic memory of spatialrelations between objects?7Munnich, Landau & Dosher (2001)25 positionsMemory TaskWhorfian prediction: English speakers notice thedifference more if it’s a touching position vs. a not-touching position since they linguistically encode thisdifference. Korean speakers will show no difference.Munnich, Landau & Dosher (2001)Memory Task ResultsKorean speakersno worse thanEnglishspeakers atnoticing thedifference.Whorfianprediction notupheld -language notinfluencing non-linguisticmemory.Features of Motion EventsLanguages vary in how various features of motion events areencodedMotion—manner—path may be encoded in various waysMotion+path (exit, enter, climb)Motion+manner (skip, slide, scurry)English: Hoggle scurried [along the wall]Spanish, Hindi: Hoggle went-along the wall [scurrying]Features of Motion


View Full Document
Download LECTURE NOTES
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view LECTURE NOTES and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view LECTURE NOTES 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?