Problem 1: Language and thought

Question 1

Whorf hypothesis

Answer 1

Language determines cognition (determinism) & it is different per language (relativity)

Question 2

Criticism on whorf hypothesis

Answer 2

1) doesn’t align with behaviourist views at the time
2)doesn’t fit Chomskys rational view of universalism
3) cogn. proc. and language need to be assessed independently

Question 3

strong view determinism / whorf hypothesis

Answer 3

language determines cognition, therefore, linguistic categories create cognitive ones

Question 4

weak view determinism / whorf hypothesis

Answer 4

‘it is not what can be said, but what is easy to say’, language influences the ease of performing cogn. processes.

Question 5

codability

Answer 5

length of the verbal expression

Question 6

Zipf’s law

Answer 6

the longer the word, the less frequent its use

Question 7

proof zipf’s law

Answer 7

longer colour words were named with more hesitation, disagreement and incosistency

Question 8

colour hierarchy in language

Answer 8

black/white –> red –> yellow/green –> Blue –> brown –> purple, pink, orange and grey

Question 9

research on focal colours

Answer 9

Dani people learn & use language like we do = refuting the whorf hypothesis

Question 10

does the colour domain support the whorf hypothesis?

Answer 10

only weak version

Question 11

numbers and the whorf hypothesis

Answer 11

language representation of number does influence mathematical thinking

Question 12

object terms and the whorf hypothesis

Answer 12

prevalence of nouns and verbs may influence timing of cognitive achievements

Question 13

spatial terms and the whorf hypothesis

Answer 13

language seems to strengthen/weaken conceptual categories, not create them

Question 14

absolute frame of reference

Answer 14

north/south

Question 15

relative frame of reference

Answer 15

object-person relation

Question 16

intrinsic frame of reference

Answer 16

object-object relation

Question 17

grammar and the whorf hypothesis

Answer 17

grammar differences may influence cognition, but may not be the only determinant (some studies find some innate word distinction in pre-linguistic children, object vs substance)

Question 18

Li & Gleitman study

Answer 18

Goal: Do linguistic differences cause differences in thinking?
Method:
- Man & tree task
- Animals in a row task (blinds down/up, outdoors & landmark cues version)
Conclusion: linguistic systems are tools influences by local circumstances for describing spatial concepts

Question 19

Levinson et al.: response to Li & Gleitman

Answer 19

Criticisms on Li & Gleitman:
- Duck pond is NOT a landmark (they had 4 instead of 3 animals and 90 instead of 180 degree turn –> no replication)
- L&G simplified their experiment –> making them too transparent
- Used absolute & relative wrong –> misinterpretation of results
- made the wrong assumptions about demographics
Conclusion: no all languages make use of all frames of references & differential use in language predicts use in non-linguistic task

Question 20

Winawer et al.: (Russian blues)

Answer 20

Goal: does language affect colours discrimination?
Hypothesis: Russian speakers should make faster cross category distinctions than within, no difference for English
Method: colour comparison, three conditions: normal viewing, verbal interference, spatial interference + near/far colour distinction
conclusion: hypothesis confirmed + effect is online: interaction of low level perceptual processing & higher level knowledge

Question 21

Lupyan & Ward (boost unseen objects into awareness)
Exp 1

Answer 21

goal: examine effect of cue type on recognition of suppressed cue type
Method: fixation –> cue –> delay –> stimulus (record hit rate and false alarms & sensitivity measure)
Results: verbal cues influenced hit rates, not false alarms

Question 22

Lupyan & ward exp 2

Answer 22

Goal: replicate exp 1, but more variable & complex images to rule out object specific strategies
Results: same results, higher overall performance

Question 23

Lupyan & ward exp 3 + conclusion

Answer 23

Goal: does effect of label on stimulus detection reflect the degree of match between label & shape?
Method: square circle exp
Results: effects of verbal label depended strongly on the match between label & stimulus
Conclusion: language can boost the presence of an object into awareness

Question 24

Gibson et al (colour naming affects colour use)

Answer 24

Goal: are colour naming systems determined innately or by culture?
Method: free choice vs fixed choice, English, Tsimane, Bolivian Spanish
Results: All 3 language have a complete representation of colour space, Tsimane had 8 modal terms English 10 & B-S 11, Tsimane had higher variability in colour term use
Conclusion: categories reflect trade off between informativeness of the term and number