Course Hero - We put you ahead of the curve!

You have requested the below document.

Coursehero >> Texas >> Rice >> LANG 306

Relativity Linguistic V Testing for Behavioral Correlates: Spatial Orientation Learning as Construction instead of children having to find meanings in a cognitive space which can be presumed to be shared between themselves and adults, children actually have to construct progressively an adultlike cognitive space in which the conceptual parameters which will enter word meanings must be discovered. (Levinson 2001: 573) Two questions Are the linguistic systems that describe spatial location essentially the same or are they variable across languages? If variable, are the differences merely linguistic or do they imply conceptual or cognitive differences? Requirements for good empirical evidence The comparison should use an external reality as the metric for calibrating the content of both linguistic and cognitive categories The language analysis should concern categories having general significance in the languages Language-based cognitive predictions should be evaluated in light of nonverbal performance of speakers Why? We want to know whether the linguistic difference affects non-linguistic thought (Requirements proposed by John Lucy) Spatial Orientation: Variation? there is in human cognition a strong background of common mammalian inheritance in spatial abilities. For this reason, spatial conception is one of the areas in which me might least expect to find significant variation across cultures. Levinson 2001: 573 Universals Relating to Spatial Orientation Same neurophysiological systems Visual Auricular Kinesthetic Gravity exerts pressure Objects scale according to size and distance The human body Front/back Right/left Up/down Assumptions about universals Kant (1768): Fundamental and irreducible nature of left/right distinction Herbert Clark (1973): Since P[erceptual] space The kinds of spatial notions we find in our own language are more or less inevitable Common biological inheritance Shared terrestrial existence George Miller & Philip Johnson-Laird (1976) is a human universal, it should condition L[inguistic] space in every language Scholarly thinking patterns Scholars argue that we can t accept Whorf s ideas without experimental evidence But scholars have accepted ideas about universals of spatial orientation without considering it necessary to test the assumptions empirically Orientation in space Universals of the external facts Up-down (gravity; earth-sky) Front-back Right-left Differences in conceptualization Indeed, as fieldwork on this topic became more comparative, we found more fundamental cultural variation than had been imagined possible in the cognitive sciences. (1998: 561) the interaction with the immediate environment might have been expected to be largely structured in terms of common systems of human perception and motor operations. (Pederson et al. 1998: 561) A Collaborative Research Effort Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization (Language 74:557-589, 1998) Eric Pederson, University of Oregon Eve Danziger, University of Virginia David Wilkins, Max Planck Institute Stephen Levinson, Max Planck Institute Sotaro Kita, Max Planck Institute Gunter Senft, Max Planck Institute 13 linguistic communities, 10 language families Mopan (Mayan) Tzeltal(Mayan) Yucatec (Mayan) Totonac Kilivila (Austronesian) Longgu (Austronesian) Kgalagadi (Bantu) Hai om (Khoisan) Arandic (Pamu-Nyungan) Tamil (Dravidian) Belhare (Tibeto-Burman) Dutch (Indo-European) Japanese (Japanese-Korean) Belize Mexico (Chiapas) Mexico (Yucatan) Mexico Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands Botswana Namibia Australia India Nepal Netherlands Japan A picture to describe Description by Arrernte speaker (facing north) (translated) In this next one [he s] standing facing towards us, the whitefellah, next to the tree. [He s] standing looking towards us, [standing] on the east side. [Long pause] The whitefellah is standing on the east side and looking towards us, but the tree is at [his] side A man and a tree: Descriptions Arandic Tzeltal Hai om Longgu Tamil Totonac Yucatec Belhare Kgalagadi Japanese Dutch Man standing in west Tree standing uphillwards of man Man stands in river land Tree standing on inland side Tree on south Tree stands west Man is on your side Tree left of man Man at right Man is at right side of tree Man standing to right of tree In Tamil (Dravidian) .. Sometimes tree described as on left side , sometimes on the north side The picture (again) Another picture In Mopan (Mayan) and Kilivila (Austronesian) .. Relative orientation of man and tree disregarded (just described as at ) mirror image photos were accepted as the same Types of Orientation Intrinsic (based on landmark) in front of/behind Relative (based on viewer) to the left/right; Absolute (based on geography) to the North/E/S/W Frames of reference for spatial orientation Intrinsic: the frog is in front of the bird Relative: the frog is to the right of the bird Absolute: the frog is West of the bird Varieties of Relative Orientation Tree between viewer and man English: The man is behind the tree Hausa: The man is in front of the tree Varieties of absolute representation North, east, south, west Uphill(wards), downhill(wards) Inland, toward the sea Monachi (Sierra Nevada, California) [near east] uphillwards [far east] across the mountains [near west] downhillwards [middle west] in the San Joaquin Valley [far west] in the Pacific Coast Range The People of Tenejapa Another Mayan group Tenejapa is in Chiapas Their language is Tzeltal Tzeltal uses absolute reference for identifying locations Put the bowl behind the English: box Put the bowl behind the box Tzeltal (Mayan, Chiapas, Mexico) Pach-an-a bojch ta y-anil te karton-e pach (action on a) bowl-shaped object pachana place a bowl-shaped vessel upright on a surface bojch bowl made from a spherical gourd ta at y-anil its down (I.e. its downhill side) te the karton-e cardboard-DEICTIC Systems used in different languages Intrinsic alone Kilivila (Austronesian) Mopan (Mayan) Relative Japanese (Japanese-Korean) Dutch (Indo-European) Absolute Arandic (Pama-Nyungan) Tzeltal (Mayan) Longgu (Austronesian) Mixed Belhare (Tibeto-Burman) Hai om (Khoisan) Kgalagadi (Bantu) Tamil (Dravidian) Totonac Yucatec (Mayan) Hypothesis Users of different language systems should correspondingly vary in their choice of nonlinguistic spatial problem-solving strategies (in analogous contexts) How to test? Evidence for linguistic relativity For clear-cut evidence we need experiments with no language either in the input or the response It doesn t mean that in situations where language is used there isn t influence of language on thought It just means that if no language is involved in the experiment the evidence is clearer A problem .. Relative and absolute frames of reference are functional equivalents in many contexts It was necessary to find a situation in which the two frames of reference would produce two different answers Solution Something to test Relative and absolute frames of reference have different properties under rotation Subjects were speakers of .. Relative Orientation Languages Dutch (40 subjects) Japanese (16) Absolute Orientation Languages Tzeltal (Chiapas, Mexico) (27) Arrernte (Australia) (16) Longgu (Solomon Islands) (16) Levinson s Experiment Table or Mat Subject Toy Animals BEAR CAT DOG (Actually, they used horse, pig, cow, sheep) Instructions to subjects All given in the language of the subject Did not use any terms for spatial locations or directions Subjects were told to remember the animals just as they are Levinson s Experiment D C B Subject Table or Mat Levinson s Experiment D C B Subject For practice trials, the subjects replaced the objects on the same table or mat Table or Mat Practice trials .. .. were continued until the subjects placements were consistently correct Levinson s Experiment D C B Subject is asked to remember the positions of the animals Levinson s Experiment D C B Animals were put down in different directions over the different trials Levinson s Experiment Experimenter: Make it again, just the same D C B Two different but equally correct solutions Levinson s Experiment D C B B C D Relative Levinson s Experiment D C B D C B Absolute All Absolute Responses Percentage of speakers 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tzeltal Longgu Arandic Japanese Dutch Majority of Responses Absolute Percentage of speakers 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tzeltal Longgu Arandic Japanese Dutch Debriefing interviews: 16 Arandic subjects 8 reported using only visual imagery 4 reported word or letter repetition of animal labels 2 reported using both of the above methods 2 were unable to say Debriefing interviews: 16 Arandic subjects Only 7 of the 16 reported using any mnemonic for remembering the direction of the animals Some were surprised to hear that the animals had been put down in different directions over the different trials Additional Experiments All used the 180 rotation technique Subject reconstructs, selects, or makes an inference Overall, results support the basic hypothesis: Subjects mentally encoded and reasoned in ways homologous to the linguistic encoding Experiments on relative vs absolute encoding Experiment Animals-in-a-row Red and blue chips Completed path task Motion maze task Transitive inference Condition Tested Visual recall memory of objects Visual recognition memory of 2-D shapes Recognition memory, inference Recognition memory, crossmodal interpretation Memory, inference Conclusions of the researchers There is a general correlation between the way language use preferentially encodes a spatial array and the way speakers of that language will tend to code it for nonlinguistic tasks Direction of causation has not been demonstrated Results are consistent with hypothesis that the language one speaks perhaps together with other cultural facts influences the conceptual parameters one will use to solve a nonverbal problem Further Conclusions Individuals cognize the same way within communities, but not necessarily across communities The linguistic system of encoding a spatial frame of reference provides a communicated model Other semiotic and cultural systems may enter into the equation but the linguistic representation is highly prominent Further Conclusions Use of the linguistic system actually forces the individual to make computations he or she might otherwise not make The linguistic system is far more than just an available pattern for creating internal representations To learn to speak a language successfully requires speakers to develop an appropriate mental representation which is then available for nonlinguistic purposes Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Language may indeed influence thoughts But thoughts are what we use to form language So language molds thought, and thought constructs language So: which came/comes first?? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Infants have thoughts before they have words But thoughts reach their full potential only through linguistic input and use So again language molds thought, and thought constructs language So: which came/comes first??

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents:

Relativity-6.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005

Relativity-7.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005
Relativity-8.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005
ThinkingPatterns05-1.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005
ThinkingPatterns05-2.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005
ThinkingPatterns05-3.pdf
Path: Rice >> LANG >> 306 Fall, 2005
lecture_1.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_2.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_3.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_4_handout.pdf
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_6.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_7.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lecture_8.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lectures11_12.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lectures11_12.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 11 Spring, 2005
lectures13_14.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lectures13_14.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 13 Spring, 2005
lectures17_18.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 102 Spring, 2005
lectures17_18.ppt
Path: Rice >> ESCI >> 17 Spring, 2005
Wilson2.ppt
Path: Rice >> SCS >> 2 Fall, 2008
pfug.doc
Path: Rice >> STAT >> 1 Spring, 2005
cv-rice-2006.pdf
Path: Rice >> RUF >> 4046 Fall, 2008
INCFpaper07.pdf
Path: Rice >> STAT >> 07 Fall, 2008
CV.pdf
Path: Rice >> DSC >> 1 Fall, 2008
REU04.ps
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 04 Fall, 2008
senior05a.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 05 Fall, 2008
SponsorLevels1.doc
Path: Rice >> RUF >> 1 Fall, 2008
CEVE307_syllabus.pdf
Path: Rice >> DSC >> 1 Fall, 2008
CEVE307_syllabus.pdf
Path: Rice >> DSC >> 307 Fall, 2008
REU04.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 04 Fall, 2008
notes1.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 05 Fall, 2008
vigreHW11.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 11 Fall, 2008
vigreHW12.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 12 Fall, 2008
vigreHW13.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 13 Fall, 2008
vigreHW14.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 14 Fall, 2008
vigreHW15.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 15 Fall, 2004
vigreHW16.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 16 Spring, 2008
A809308C.pdf
Path: Rice >> A >> 809308 Fall, 2008
JCP10867.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 10867 Fall, 2008
JCP07253.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 07253 Fall, 2008
JCP07589.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 07589 Fall, 2008
JCP08879.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 08879 Fall, 2008
JCP6394.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 6394 Fall, 2008
JCP7112.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 7112 Fall, 2008
JPhysA2105.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 2105 Fall, 2008
JCP7784.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 7784 Fall, 2008
JCP1097.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 1097 Fall, 2008
JPhysA9907.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 9907 Fall, 2008
PRE031902.pdf
Path: Rice >> PRE >> 031902 Fall, 2008
JCP174905.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 174905 Fall, 2008
JCP244706.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 244706 Fall, 2008
TMPH114251.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 114251 Fall, 2008
JCP204901.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 204901 Fall, 2008
NatureMethods1021.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 1021 Fall, 2008
PRE031910.pdf
Path: Rice >> PRE >> 031910 Fall, 2008
jstat7_12_p12008.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 7 Fall, 2008
BiophysJ1547.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 1547 Fall, 2008
JCP085101.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 085101 Fall, 2008
JPCB4741.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 4741 Fall, 2008
JCTC652.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 652 Fall, 2008
PRE040901.pdf
Path: Rice >> PRE >> 040901 Fall, 2008
PRE061912.pdf
Path: Rice >> PRE >> 061912 Fall, 2008
JPCB11112.pdf
Path: Rice >> PYTHON >> 11112 Fall, 2008
hw1.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 1 Fall, 2004
hw2.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 2 Fall, 2004
hw3.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 3 Fall, 2004
hw4.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 4 Fall, 2004
hw5.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 5 Fall, 2004
hw6.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 6 Fall, 2004
hw7.pdf
Path: Rice >> MATH >> 7 Spring, 2006