{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Levinson et al argue that they arent a good recreation

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: our biological nature” (p. 266) In other words… Levinson et al. (2002)’s response   In the original study, not all absolute language speakers were tested outdoors   Li and Gleitman made the task too easy (no memory component, only 3, and not 4 objects, no translational motion of ppt), which might encourage second ­guessing the task   The experiments with English speakers and the styrofoam ducks confound Absolute and Intrinsic frames of reference, which make the same prediction (Levinson et al., 2002) Animals in a row, again   Replicated the original, harder animals in a row task, in the Netherlands, outdoors (and compared with previously published indoor data) Animals in a row, again—results Maze task, again Maze task, again—results   Dutch speakers behaved the same indoors or outdoors Maze task, again—discussion   So maybe Li and Gleitman didn’t replicate the original results because they made the task too simple, which led to second ­guessing Kissing ducks   But what about the kissing ducks?   Levinson et al. argue that they aren’t a good recreation of an absolute frame of reference   They’re a landmark, not an absolute direction   They’re also not a single landmark, because there are two of them   Instead,...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online